Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA

General Election

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he will make a statement on the forth-coming General Election in Tanganyika indicating whether it will take place in 1960 or 1961; whether the constitutional changes there, now under consideration by Her Majesty's Government, will be implemented before or after that election; and under what franchise that election will be held;
(2) if he will state his latest constitutional proposals for Tanganyika.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): The Governor has stated, with my agreement, that the next elections will be held in September, 1960, or as soon thereafter as the necessary preparations can be completed. With regard to the timing and nature of constitutional changes, I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) on 17th November.

Mr. Hughes: In order to create a suitable atmosphere for that election and also for the solution of outstanding problems in the area, will the Minister give an assurance that the franchise will be of such a character that a representative Government will be elected?

Mr. Macleod: The extension of the franchise is one of the main parts of the Ramage Committee's proposals, which I have been discussing with the Governor in this country over the last few days. The statement which will be made before the end of the year will deal with that.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: May I ask whether it is proposed to publish the Ramage Committee's Report and, if so, when?

Mr. Macleod: It has not yet been published but I think that after the statement is made to which I have referred, which will be next month, it will be appropriate to publish it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL AFRICA

Advisory Commission

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the Devlin Report, what are the plans of Her Majesty's Government for Central Africa.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I would ask the hon. Member to await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to make at the end of Questions.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the desirability of creating the right atmosphere for the solution of the outstanding problems in that area, will the Minister at least say that he will now release Dr. Banda and his colleagues?

Mr. Macleod: I dealt with that point in the debate on the reply to the Address. Dr. Banda's position is the same as that of any other detainee. Their cases are reviewed regularly and kept under permanent review. The result of those policies has already been to release two-thirds of those who were detained.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Revocation of Emergency Powers

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is proposed to end the state of emergency in Kenya and to release from detention Mr. Jomo Kenyatta, who has concluded his prison sentence, and Mr. Achieng, ex-Senior Chief Koinange, and others who have been acquitted by the courts.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I would refer the hon. Member to my statement of 10th November.
Mr. Achieng Oneko, ex-Senior Chief Koinange and other persons whose


movements are restricted under the Emergency Regulations will have their cases reviewed by the Special Commissioner and, if he is unable to recommend release, by the Advisory Committee.
Mr. Jomo Kenyatta and his associates, however, are in a different legal category, since they are restricted under substantive law on the recommendation of the Court.

Mr. Brockway: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously contemplate that Mr. Kenyatta, who has finished his sentence, shall be detained for the rest of his life, when Nazi criminals are now free and in positions of authority? Is he aware that both Mr. Achieng and ex-Senior Chief Koinange are known to many Members of the House and that we are completely convinced that they never had anything to do with Mau Mau outrages or obscenities?

Mr. Macleod: In respect of Mr. Achieng Oneko and ex-Senior Chief Koinange, I think that the best method is to go through the procedure which I have outlined. This review has already been started by the Special Commissioner, though it has not yet been completed. Mr. Kenyatta and his associates were not affected by the announcement which I made about the end of the emergency, because their restriction, to which no term was set, was as a result of the recommendation of the court.

Mr. J. Hynd: Is the Minister aware that there are reports in the Press to the effect that Kenyatta is detained because he was proved to be a leader of Mau Mau terrorists? Will the Minister publicly correct those allegations?

Mr. Macleod: Kenyatta's conviction was accompanied by a recommendation by the court that afterwards he should be restrained, and that was accepted by the Government, and it is under the terms of that, not under emergency powers, that it is carried out.

White Highlands

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why he is unable to obtain statistics of the total amount of acreage of cultivable land in the Kenya White Highlands which remains unalienated.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Although there were, in the middle of 1959, less than 53 square miles of Crown land in the Highlands available for alienation, the figures at my disposal do not show how much is either too barren, too inaccessible, or too fragmented to be farmed. But the Kenya Government, in accordance with a recent Motion of the Legislative Council, are making a detailed examination of all unalienated Crown land other than forest reserve, both in and out of the Highlands, so as to make available land for development and settlement by landless people of all races.

Mr. Dugdale: Does that mean that these figures will be available in due course?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, it does.

Higher Education

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress is being made with the technical institute in Nairobi; and to what extent the Government of Kenya are considering the implementation of the suggestions made in the report of the working party on higher education in East Africa.

Mr. Iain Macleod: On the first part of the Question, work has now begun on the new technical institute building with the help of a £65,000 C.D. & W. grant.
On the second part, the East African Governments accept the recommendations of the Working Party on High Education in East Africa that there should be a University of East Africa comprising three inter-territorial university colleges, of which the reconstituted Royal Technical College will be one, and they are now studying the financial and other implications of the recommendations with a view to preparing a phased programme acceptable to all three Territories.

Mr. Thomson: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that Answer, may I ask him whether he agrees that the success of these important recommendations will depend on the generosity with which the Government make


grants from Colonial Development and Welfare funds?

Mr. Macleod: It will in part. There are many other factors as well. I hope soon to be able to announce the amount of financial provision for the Royal Technical College.

Trial by Jury

Mr. Foot: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in Kenya the right to trial by jury is confined to Europeans and denied to Africans and Asians; and what steps are proposed to remedy this situation.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir. The Kenya Government recently considered the possibility of extending the right to trial by jury to all races, but decided that at present practical considerations make such an extension impossible.

Mr. Foot: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this form of inequality before the law occasions great resentment among the non-European races in Kenya? Will he consider discussing this question with the African and Asian elected members when they come to London in January?

Mr. Macleod: The hon. and learned Member must not assume that I am out of sympathy with this Question. I am not. I fully understand the matter. The practical considerations thrown up are that, taking the 1957 statistics, it could mean an additional 52,000 supreme court trials each year. I certainly agree that this is a matter which is unsatisfactory in its differentiation and ought to be kept under close review.

Mr. Paget: Is it not a fact that before European juries it has in practice proved almost impossible to get convictions of Europeans in cases where the victims have been Africans? Is not the lesson here that in a multi-racial society trial by jury is an unsuitable method?

Mr. Macleod: I should not like to comment on the way that the hon. and learned Member puts his supplementary question without a much more detailed examination than so far I have been able to make.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

British Bases

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether agreement has yet been reached regarding the maintenance of British bases in Cyprus.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about present negotiations on the extent and facilities afforded for British military bases in Cyprus.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Julian Amery): The agreement reached at the London Conference last February regarding the maintenance of British sovereign areas and military rights and facilities are being put into Treaty form by the London Joint Committee.
Since these matters are still under discussion there, I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Brockway: First, is it the intention of the Government to include Cypriot villages within the scope of our bases? Secondly, is it proposed to include valuable agricultural land? Thirdly, will Cypriots living in the base areas be allowed to retain their Cypriot nationality?

Mr. Amery: I am sorry not to be able to enlighten the hon. Gentleman very much, but I must stay where I stood a moment ago. I am not yet in a position to make a statement, as the matter is under discussion in the London Joint Committee.

Mr. Wall: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there has been considerable anxiety due to newspaper speculation? Would he agree that recent history has shown that we must have sovereignty not only over the bases, but over an adequate manoeuvre area, water supply and radar control?

Mr. Amery: I do not disagree with what my hon. Friend has said. I am glad to be able to tell him that the newspaper comment was singularly ill-informed.

Major Legge-Bourke: Does not my hon. Friend agree that we have been considerably patient over this? We


realise that the negotiations are extremely tricky, but can he give us an assurance that as soon as possible the House will be informed of progress?

Mr. Amery: Yes. As soon as we can, we will let the House know what is happening.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEYCHELLES

Development Plan

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now able to disclose the details of the development plan for the Seychelles.

Mr. J. Amery: "A Plan for Seychelles" has been published in the Colony today. I will put copies in the Library of the House as soon as they are available.
The plan is aimed at making Seychelles financially independent and at improving the living standards of its people. Its main features are concerned with the development of agricultural resources, the improvement of communications and public amenities, the encouragement of tourism and the promotion of new measures in public education and public health. Its full implementation will cost £2½ million.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND

Africans (Political Association)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now restore to Africans in Nyasaland the freedom of political association.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Africans in Nyasaland are already free to join any lawful political association.

Mr. Swingler: Is not that a very hypocritical Answer? How can the Minister claim that Africans have freedom of political association when hundreds of Africans are detained in Nyasaland on political charges but not brought to trial? Is not the basis of freedom of political association habeas corpus and the right of a man to be able to defend himself? Will not the Minister consider granting that immediately?

Mr. Macleod: My Answer was accurate, both in the letter and in the spirit. There are many associations in Nyasaland, as the hon. Member knows full well—the Malawi Congress Party, the Congress Liberation Party and a great number of others—which are wholly or primarily African. On the wider implications of the hon. Gentleman's statement, no one is more anxious than I am to return as soon as possible to a normal state of affairs in Nyasaland.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the Secretary of State aware that even lawful political organisations such as the Malawi Congress Party are forbidden by law to hold any political meetings and are pursued in their normal political activities by the political police of Nyasaland?

Mr. Macleod: This is covered by my Answer. I hope that as soon as the Governor is satisfied that we can do this we shall return to a completely normal state as far as these are concerned.

African Civil Servants

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been sent to the letter of protest sent to the Nyasaland Government by the Nyasaland Trade Union Congress, concerning the dismissal of African civil servants who felt unable to transfer to the federal service; how many such refusals there were; and what steps are being taken to provide those concerned with suitable alternative posts in Nyasaland.

Mr. Iain Macleod: There was no question of dismissal, and the Nyasaland Trades Union Congress has been informed that no one was obliged to resign. Seconded officers had been given a period of five years in which to decide whether to accept transfer to the federal service or to seek employment elsewhere. Five hundred and eighty-eight African officers declined to transfer, and as many of these as possible have been reabsorbed into the Nyasaland Government service.

Mr. Hynd: Do I understand from the Minister that at the expiration of these five years any civil servants who have not accepted transfer will be dismissed? Can he tell us on what grounds such a


decision will be taken when there is, apparently, no charge against these civil servants in connection with the services for which they accepted employment? Is this an example of British protection?

Mr. Macleod: I think that the situation arises from the Order in Council of 1953. Because a number of the Departments were transferred with rather specialised posts, the suggestion was made that the officers holding those posts should be transferred with them, and after an initial period of two years' secondment they were given the five-year option to which I have referred. That period is now up.

Employment

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Africans have left Nyasaland during the past year to seek work in other territories; how many have found employment outside Nyasaland; and what is the present scale of wages now offered for unskilled work in the townships and countryside, respectively, of Nyasaland.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Sixty-six thousand nine hundred, of whom 59,000 are known to have obtained employment. The minimum wages for unskilled adult labour, for an eight-hour day, are from 2s 1d. to 2s. 6d. in townships and 1s. 5d. in other areas.

Mr. Hynd: Does not the Minister consider that the low rates of wages are one of the main causes for so many of these Africans leaving the Territory, and cannot something be done to improve the conditions in Nyasaland?

Mr. Macleod: The rates are certainly low, although those I have given are minimum rates. But Nyasaland is primarily an agricultural country and for many years there has been the problem of a considerable surplus of manpower. Indeed, I think that this is one of the fundamental facts that confront us all in our examination of what should happen in Central Africa.

Mr. Wall: Is there not a strong case for voluntary transfer of population from the over-populated area of Nyasaland to the under-populated area of Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. Macleod: I suppose there might be, if it could be achieved voluntarily, but this position has maintained for a number of years. People have gone to the territories south of Nyasaland to obtain work, and have returned to Nyasaland.

Monckton Commission (African Members)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which were the Africans whose opinions were taken into account by the Governor of Nyasaland before recommending the names of the African members of the Monckton Commission.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Apart from the opportunities of sounding African opinion which come naturally to the Governor in the course of public business, he has had discussions on general constitutional matters with representatives of African opinion in Nyasaland. He, naturally, took into account the general views expressed in those discussions before making to me his specific recommendations for membership of the Monckton Commission.

Mrs. Castle: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer quite frankly and straightforwardly the question whether, in recommending the people to go on the Commission who are supposed to represent the African point of view, the Governor did or did not have talks and consultations with the Malawi Congress Party and other political organisations, to which the right hon. Gentleman himself has referred in the House today as examples showing the existence of African democracy?

Mr. Macleod: Certainly, on this point the Governor did see Mr. Orton Chirwa, the leader of the Malawi Party and, as I say, other leaders of African opinion in Nyasaland.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any one of these political parties representative of Africans in Nyasaland was given an opportunity to nominate people for the Commission?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir, there was no question of nomination from that point of view. The names, of course, were to


be announced. I think that they are to be announced today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. But, of course, recommendations are put forward by the Governors of these Territories to me and to the Government in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA

Beer (Excise Duty)

Mr. W. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies by how much the annual total of excise revenue on locally brewed beer in British Guiana has been increased during this financial year, following the increased excise duty levied last year.

Mr. J. Amery: The British Guiana Government expect a fall in yield of nearly 4 per cent.

Mr. W. Yates: I thank my hon. Friend for that satisfactory reply. He did not give the figure, so it is a loss. Whereas I gladly admit that I am a shareholder of this pioneer company, may I ask the Under-Secretary to bear in mind that it is all very well for Colonial Governments to arrange for a tax-free period for these pioneer companies, but there are other methods of raising tax, such as increasing the excise? I do not consider this to be particularly fair. Will he bear some of these points in mind in regard to future pioneer companies in the Caribbean and elsewhere?

Mr. Amery: I will certainly bear my hon. Friend's point in mind. He will appreciate that the incidence of the tax has been such that the manufacturer has not felt it necessary to pass it on to the consumer.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN CAMEROONS

Plebiscite

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about the forthcoming plesbiscite in the Southern Cameroons; and what questions are to be answered by the population of that country.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) on 2nd November, to which I have at present nothing to add.

Mr. Tilney: Now that the people in the Northern Cameroons have voted by a large majority to remain on their own, will my right hon. Friend consider, although their decision is detrimental to sensible Government and is a surprise to many, that the people in the Southern Cameroons might like to answer a similar question?

Mr. Macleod: The questions which will be put at the plebiscite to the people of the Southern Cameroons have already been fixed and announced. The question of what we should do now in view of the situation created by the vote in the Northern Cameroons is being urgently considered in London in my office and also in the United Nations.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH BORNEO

Airport, Labuan

Mr. Turner: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which international airlines, other than Malayan Airways, are at present using the airport at Labuan, North Borneo, as a scheduled stop; and what is the number of flights per month by each airline.

Mr. J. Amery: Cathay Pacific Airways.
There are four calls per month in each direction on the Hong Kong-Kuching service.

Mr. Turner: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that these figures indicate that fewer and fewer airlines are using this strategic airfield? Further, is he aware that this is due to the total inadequacy over a considerable number of years of arrangements for bringing the airfield up to modern standards? Will he look into the matter?

Mr. Amery: I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that much is being done on the development of the airport, both by the R.A.F. and on the civilian side.

Police Force (Marine Branch)

Mr. Turner: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the strength of the marine branch of the North Borneo Police Force, and the number of vessels concerned.

Mr. J. Amery: The strength of the marine branch is seventy-two officers and mm. The branch operates eight seagoing launches and two other launches.

Mr. Turner: Does my hon. Friend feel that this force is adequate in view of the fact that on 24th October there was a further incident in which Philippine pirates, armed with modern ships and weapons of war, raided the Kampong of Trusan? This sort of thing is causing considerable apprehension up and down the coast. Will my hon. Friend consider the provision of an R.A.F. detachment at Sandakan to facilitate this matter with the police?

Mr. Amery: I agree with my hon. Friend that the present force is not quite adequate, but expenditure has recently been approved for two fast pursuit craft to be added to the present fleet. I will certainly examine the suggestion my hon. Friend made in his supplementary question.

Shipping, Labuan

Mr. Turner: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the gross tonnage of ships using the free port of Labuan during 1958, and the total cargo involved.

Mr. J. Amery: The Answer is that 1,376,157 gross tons of shipping and 197,713 tons of cargo were handled at Labuan during 1958.

Mr. Turner: Is my hon. Friend aware that, since the introduction of free port status for Labuan in 1956, its percentage of North Borneo trade has risen far more slowly than that for the rest of North Borneo? Will he consult his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade as to means of encouraging British manufacturers to use this very strategically situated port?

Mr. Amery: I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Constitution

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he proposes to hold talks about a new constitution for Malta.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am proposing to visit Malta in a fortnight's time, but I have at present no statement to make on constitutional talks.

Mr. Wall: While being delighted that my right hon. Friend is to study the problem on the spot, may I ask him to bear in mind that Colonial Office administration, however good, is never popular and that, unless there is some form of elected legislative assembly in Malta, no expression can be given to public opinion?

Mr. Macleod: It has been stated on a number of occasions that we hope that the present Constitution is interim. I hope that after my talks in Malta with leaders of the political parties and others it will be possible to make a move forward.

Education

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what inquiries have been made into the need for university education in Malta; and what steps are being taken to bring about a general reorganisation of education in the island.

Mr. J. Amery: A Commission headed by Sir Hector Hetherington reported on the functions and finances of the Royal University of Malta in July, 1957. In pursuance of its recommendations a Statutory University Commission has been established. In accordance with this Commission's recommendation the Government of Malta's annual grant to the university has been doubled and converted into a triennial grant for development and reorganisation.
As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the appropriate chapters of the Government of Malta's Five Year Development Plan, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

Mr. Awbery: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that all the facilities afforded to the people of Malta for education at elementary, secondary and university level, are satisfactory? If he is, it is contrary to the opinion of the Maltese people.

Mr. Amery: I would never say that we were satisfied with the position, but I think that the sums of money made


available for improvements in the sphere of education should give a considerable return at all the levels to which the hon. Gentleman refers and at one to which he did not refer, namely, technical education, which will amount to about half the sum allocated for educational purposes.

Mr. Awbery: It is not enough.

United Kingdom Aid

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total value of United Kingdom aid to Malta in 1957–58; and what it is estimated to be in the current financial year.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The figures are £5·9 million and approximately £5 million.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: First, am I right in assuming that this takes no account of the £29 million development programme? Secondly, during his forthcoming visit will my right hon. Friend pay special attention to the economic problems confronting the islands as well as the constitutional problems?

Mr. Macleod: The answer to both parts of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is "Yes, Sir."

Development Plan

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the new development plan for the Maltese Islands, indicating what new investment is envisaged and what new employment this will create.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The plan, of which a copy is in the Library, envisages new capital investment from public funds of £32¼ million over the five years 1959–64. Of this, £12 million is to complete existing projects and about £4 million is being held in reserve. Planned public investment in new schemes is therefore of the order of £16¼ million. The assistance offered under the plan by way of loans, grants and other inducements to industrial development should attract additional investment from private funds. The plan aims at full employment. Provided the full allocation for industrial development is taken up and matched by private investment, this aim should be secured.

Mr. Driberg: What figure of jobs needed does the right hon. Gentleman have in mind? Is he quite sure that in the plan there is not some risk of counting the same figure twice? Is he allowing for subsidiary jobs over and above the figure of 9,000 which, I think, has been mentioned?

Mr. Macleod: In reply to the first point, the hon. Member will find that that is dealt with in the plan itself under the subject of employment. In reply to the second point, I know that this criticism is made by a distinguished economist in this country who has great knowledge of Malta and that, I expect, is to what the hon. Member refers. This project was, however, carried out with the help of Dr. Adler, of the International Bank, and it would be surprising, therefore, if such errors existed in it.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES

Emergency Procedure

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies his policy with regard to the introduction into other Colonial Territories of the type of quasi-emergency procedure which is being introduced by the Kenya Government.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Other Colonial Governments may well wish to consider whether legislation of the type which is being introduced by the Kenya Government would produce a suitable framework for dealing with local security problems. I shall be prepared to examine, in consultation with the Governments concerned, any proposals for similar legislation that may be made.

Mr. Robinson: Whilst I accept the Colonial Secretary's motive in what he said about the sledgehammer of the Emergency Powers Order, may I ask whether he appreciates that this new procedure may well make it easier for Colonial Governors to detain persons without trial? Therefore, will he at least give an assurance that this new procedure will be debated in this House before he contemplates any extension of it?

Mr. Macleod: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is not, of course, a matter for me, but, on his main point, if I remember


rightly, The Times leader that commented on this came to the correct conclusion when it said that though this might be a useful precedent it was not one to be slavishly followed. That is how I look on it. I think that one must look at the needs of each Territory specially to see if the Kenya precedent has any application to it.

Restriction Orders

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many people are now rusticated for political offences; and what principles are applied by Her Majesty's Government in deciding how long their rustication shall continue.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Restriction orders are imposed by Colonial Governments on grounds of public security, and remain in force, subject to regular review, so long as a threat to public security continues. I am asking the Governments concerned for a return of the number of orders currently in force and will then communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. Dugdale: Does the Colonial Secretary himself make inquiry from time to time as to whether the number is increasing or decreasing? Is he keeping an eye on this matter to see that the number affected decreases rather than increases in future?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, I do keep an eye on it in these territories that are most under the microscope, as it were, at the present time, but I can answer the Question in full only by asking all the Governments where these sort of ordinances exist.

Mr. J. Hynd: Is it not very embarrassing to our representatives at the United Nations when they are discussing problems in other countries to be faced with the charge that we ourselves are responsible for locking up so many people for political offences without trial?

Mr. Macleod: This matter is related to rustication and restriction.

Corona Library Books (Grants)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why he is subsidising the Corona Library series of books from Colonial Development and Welfare funds.

Mr. J. Amery: A scheme has been in operation since 1950. There was then, and there still is today, a serious lack of literary works containing comprehensive and authoritative information about individual British dependent territories.
Grants from C.D. & W. funds have accordingly been made to provide a planned series of books, published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office to meet the needs of overseas service probationers under training, officers of the overseas services, and serious students of colonial affairs.

Mr. Rankin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I agree entirely with the purpose of this series—I think that it is an excellent one—but is not it the case that Colonial Development and Welfare funds were meant to be devoted to raising the standard of living of the dependent territories, and were not meant to be used to subsidise publications for circulation in this country? Will the hon. Gentleman consider either of two alternatives? Is it possible to put this series on a commercial basis or, alternatively, subsidise it from another and more appropriate Vote of this House?

Mr. Amery: I will certainly consult at any rate one of my right hon. Friends who knows something about publishing with regard to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we should put it on a commercial basis, although I am surprised at his making that suggestion since it might identify him too much with the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay)—

Mr. Rankin: Who?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North, whose advocacy of private enterprise against nationalisation is known to the whole House.
I think that the expenditure of Colonial Development and Welfare funds to increase the understanding of those who are responsible for development and progress in the Colonies fully justifies the experiment we have been making. We do not expect that there will be any loss. We have spent about £21,000, of which we have already recovered £14,000, and we expect that sales will be sufficient over the next few years to enable us to bring out more books in the series.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the Minister look at this matter again? I am sure that everybody who knows the series welcomes it and welcomes the spending of Government money upon it, but would not it be much better to take the money out of the Colonial Office Vote instead of out of Colonial Development and Welfare funds which are deliberately earmarked for raising living standards in the underdeveloped territories?

Mr. Amery: The sum involved in this case was about £13,000. It was a deliberate contribution towards equipping the officers who go out to raise living standards to do their job properly. It has always been accepted that the officers themselves can be a legitimate charge on Colonial Development and Welfare funds, and, therefore, what is, I think, an essential part of their training can be treated in the same way.

Mr. Thorpe: Does the series include the Devlin Report? If not, can arrangements be made to include it?

Mr. Amery: The answer to both those supplementary questions is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Siavonga

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the proposed Northern Rhodesian holiday centre on the shores of Lake Kariba at Siavonga will be planned on the basis of racial partnership and open to citizens of all races without discrimination.

Mr. Iain Macleod: It is planned to develop Siavonga as a township, not merely a holiday centre, and there will be no discrimination on racial grounds in the allocation of sites.

Mr. Swingler: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that welcome reply, may I ask if he has seen the report in The Times today headed
Lack of Progress on Colour Bar. North Rhodesia call for Inquiry.
The report goes on to say that a debate on the colour bar is taking place in the Northern Rhodesian Legislature today. Will the Colonial Secretary use the

example of this scheme to press the Northern Rhodesian Government to abolish racial discrimination in all other schemes that are being promoted?

Mr. Macleod: As I understand the position, the Legislative Council in Northern Rhodesia has already resolved to establish a committee to consider this question if reasonable progress in this field has not been achieved voluntarily by the end of this year.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the projects at Siavonga is a large luxury hotel? Will he ensure that, in granting the licence for this hotel, the Northern Rhodesian Government insist on access to it without any discrimination that is based on colour?

Mr. Macleod: The inquiry to which I have just referred is directed exactly to that point of the admission of Africans to places of refreshment and entertainment in this holiday centre.

Tonga Tribesmen (Resettlement)

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a progress report on the conditions of the 29,000 Tonga tribesmen recently moved from the Kariba site and resettled by the Northern Rhodesian Government; how many of these Africans have died during or since this transfer; and what were the reasons for their deaths.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The resettlement of the Africans mentioned by the hon. Member was completed by June of this year.
The figures of normal deaths in the resettlement areas are not available. In the Lusitu resettlement area two exceptional outbreaks of bacillary dysentery occurred in late 1958 and early 1959, causing the deaths of sixty-one people among a population of 6,000. These outbreaks were quickly dealt with by the medical authorities and free issues of milk were made to the children to help combat the disease.
Since the beginning of September, thirty-seven women and children have died in five villages owing to the consumption of a vegetable poison, probably solamine which is derived from a form of deadly nightshade. The manner


in which it was taken has not been definitely established but it is being urgently investigated.
In other areas, 21,000 have settled down. Fishing has started on a scale which has exceeded expectations and cooperative societies have been established.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Colonial Secretary satisfied that the rather more encouraging reports we have lately had that the situation has been dealt with in a new spirit of co-operation amongst the transferred tribesmen are adequately substantiated, and will he do everything possible to encourage that spirit?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, I certainly shall. It is a very good spirit.

Settlement Scheme (Northern Province)

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the resettlement scheme in the Abercorn area of Northern Rhodesia is to be restricted to Europeans only; and how much the Northern Rhodesian Government intend to spend on this project.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Since the only current agricultural settlement scheme in the Abercorn area is for Africans only, I assume that the hon. Member has in mind a proposal at present under consideration for the development of Crown land in the Northern Province. Like other settlement schemes for Crown land, it will be open to all applicants who meet the required qualifications of experience and capital. As regards the second part of the Question, it is estimated that about £25,000 would be adequate for the purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA

Commonwealth Education Conference (Representatives)

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consultations took place with leaders of African opinion in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanganyika, in connection with the selection of representatives of these Territories to attend the recent Commonwealth Education Conference.

Mr. J. Amery: There were no special consultations. The Governments of

Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika selected their Ministers responsible for education or their directors of education. They were considered to be the persons best able to discuss professional and administrative matters at the Commonwealth Education Conference

Mr. MacPherson: The hon. Gentleman says that there were no special consultations. Were there any consultations at all?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Ministers responsible for education and the directors of education are in constant and daily touch both with Africans qualified to advise on education purposes and with the ordinary advisory bodies representative of Africans which are interested in education. So they were in constant touch with the problem in their own countries.

Mr. MacPherson: Does that answer mean, in fact, that the answer to my original question is "No"?

Mr. Amery: As I say, there were no special consultations, but I should not like to give the impression that there were no individual consultations. There may well have been.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA

Political Freedom

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is satisfied with the degree of political freedom in Uganda; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Macleod: It is very difficult to calculate the degree of political freedom existing in any society—[Laughter.]—such as whether one should have standing orders—but I am in general satisfied that in Uganda now there exists a full degree of political freedom consistent with the need to maintain law and order.

Mr. Stonehouse: Does the Minister realise that that Answer will sound absolutely ludicrous to people on the spot? Although it may be perfectly appropriate for his Administration in Uganda to ban the Uganda underground movement, is he aware that the Uganda Freedom Movement, along with several other


similar movements, is banned and the leaders are at present rusticated? When the right hon. Gentleman goes to Uganda, will he consider making a statement about the future of the Uganda Protectorate in order to allay all the anxieties which are felt and allow people to have the political freedom to which they are entitled?

Mr. Macleod: I will, of course, study the situation in Uganda very closely when I am there next month. I do not think that the question whether one should make any statement or not arises out of this Question. As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, there are several similar movements—indeed, they are copies of each other—which have been restricted, and they were proscribed for the reason I gave, because it was thought that their development was inconsistent with the need to maintain law and order.

Constitution

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what further progress has been made in respect of constitutional difficulties in Uganda; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The Constitutional Committee to which my right hon. Friend referred in his reply to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) on 20th November, 1958, has not yet completed its examination of the matters remitted to it. Preparatory talks have meanwhile been opened on the revision of the Buganda constitution.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

Detainees (Letters to Members)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) to what extent Dr. Banda is allowed to receive letters and newspapers; and what degree of censorship is exercised in both cases;
(2) to what extent British-protected persons, held in detention without trial in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, are entitled to write to hon. Members without censorship; and if he will take steps to ensure that the freedom of hon. Members to act upon such letters will be in no way impaired by legislation of those Territories.

Mr. Iain Macleod: There are no detainees in Northern Rhodesia. Nyasaland detainees, including Dr. Banda, are, under prison regulations, entitled to send and receive one letter each week, but the prison authorities have discretion to increase this entitlement. All detainees' mail is examined as a security precaution.
Detainees are provided with a selection of local newspapers and other publications and no material is excised unless it advocates violence and subversion or seeks to justify or excuse the employment of these methods as a means of obtaining political objectives.
If the hon. Member will give me any examples of how he considers the freedom of hon. Members might be impaired in practice, I will glady consider the matter.

Mr. Stonehouse: On Question No. 29, is the Colonial Secretary aware that newspapers sent to Dr. Banda are at present being censored, and is not this intolerable? On Question No. 31, is he aware that the Federal Administration has just published a Bill under the terms of which it will be made a criminal offence for anyone to act upon correspondence sent from prisons in Nyasaland or, indeed, Northern Rhodesia? Does not this prevent Members of Parliament acting on information which may be sent to them?

Mr. Macleod: On the first point, if such censorship of the newspapers which Dr. Banda has—I will very gladly look into this—has occurred, I assume that it is for the reason I gave in my Answer. The second point, I agree, is an immensely difficult one. Of course, no legislation passed could affect the rights of hon. Members to raise a matter in this House, but matters which might entrench ultimately on Parliamentary Privilege, of course, are not for me to define.

Mr. Wade: Can the Minister give an assurance that the Emergency Regulations will be withdrawn before the Monckton Commission goes out, since the point raised in the first of these Questions is surely evidence of precisely the kind of problem which is likely to arise if leading Africans are retained in detention without trial while the inquiry is taking place?

Mr. Macleod: I could not give an assurance in those terms. The Emergency Regulations will be removed as soon as possible, but I cannot give an exact date.

Mr. Bevan: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether Dr. Banda is able to receive his own solicitor without the presence of Government representatives?

Mr. Macleod: I should like to inquire into that question and let the right hon. Gentleman know the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN CAMEROONS

Plebiscite

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to the statement made by the Premier of the Northern Region of Nigeria regarding the conduct of British officers during the recent plebiscite in the Northern Cameroons; and what action he proposes to take to maintain confidence in the impartiality of British officers in the course of their duties there.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir. The United Nations Plebiscite Commissioner, whose duty it was to supervise the plebiscite arrangements, stated that the plebiscite was organised and conducted by the administering authorities with efficiency, impartiality and in accordance with the laws and regulations promulgated for this purpose. I have no doubt that publicity will be given to the Plebiscite Commissioner's statement.

Mr. Pannell: Is not it a fact that the Northern Cameroons consists of two isolated strips of territory separated by 40 miles of Nigerian territory proper and administered up to now as parts of three separate provinces of Nigeria? In view of that, will not it be a matter of extreme difficulty and embarrassment for Her Majesty's Government to continue administration of this territory after Nigeria has achieved its independence next year?

Mr. Macleod: As far as I know, my hon. Friend's geography is correct. Certainly it will be an enormously difficult problem, in the period between October, 1960, and whenever a final decision is reached about the Northern

Cameroons, to improvise administrative machinery in that area, and that is why I hope that the gap will be as short as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN PROTECTORATE

Development

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans are being considered by the Federated Territories of the Aden Protectorate for agricultural expansion and the extension of educational and medical services; what further financial and other assistance to that end has been offered by Her Majesty's Government; what other protectorate areas are now in process of considering joining the Federation; and which have positively refused further to consider the matter.

Mr J. Amery: The Federation's first task must be to establish the basic services and consolidate what already exists on a federal basis. Meanwhile, development plans are being prepared for the whole of the Protectorate, but I am not yet in a position to give details. About £1½million of Colonial Development and Welfare funds is available for the Protectorate for the current period. I am not aware what States are at present considering joining the Federation; nor do I know of any which has decided not to consider the matter.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that whatever may be the value of political federation in this area will be largely lost unless there is corresponding economic development, which is urgently needed? May we have an assurance that funds will be available to enable this desirable economic, agricultural and educational development to take place?

Mr. Amery: I would not disagree with the hon. Member. It is our intention to help as much as we can in the spheres which he mentioned—agriculture, education, medical services and others.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Refugees

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many of those classified as refugees in Hong Kong are now employed; how many of their


children are receiving education; what further progress has been achieved in rehousing them; at what rate refugees are still entering Hong Kong; how many refugees have settled in the rural area of the new territories; and what plans exist or are being considered for the dispersal of the refugee population to areas outside the Colony.

Mr. J. Amery: It is neither possible to distinguish refugees from other people in Hong Kong, nor to give a reliable estimate of new arrivals. The hon. Gentleman may, however, like to know that complete unemployment as distinct from under-employment is believed to be slight; approximately 85 per cent. of the Colony's children of school age receive some form of education; nearly 300,000 squatters have been rehoused; there are at present no figures available for refugee settlement in the new territories; there are no plans for dispersal outside the Colony.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that constantly we are informed of the number of refugees in Hong Kong? How can he say that it is not possible to discriminate between one type of inhabitant and another? Is it not possible to contemplate agricultural settlement of some of these refugees in the rural areas of the new territories? Surely there is a vast area there which could be used in this way. As it is, Hong Kong is becoming overcrowded with industrial development.

Mr. Amery: In answer to the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, many of the refugees have settled in the so-called new territories. Although I have not the exact figures, the figures of the number of refugees are very far from accurate.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is it not a little unfortunate that the Governor of Hong Kong should have to come to this country and seek what amounts to private charity from the World Refugee Fund in order to meet this problem? Should not the Government themselves give more generous direct help towards meeting this refugee problem on the borders of Communist China?

Mr. Amery: The Government of the United Kingdom have done a certain amount and the Government of Hong

Kong has done a good deal. I hope that nothing which the hon. Member has said will do anything to discourage voluntary charity also helping.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. LEONARD HACKETT

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Attorney-General whether, in view of the recent statement made by Mr. Leonard Hackett, J.P., Chairman of the Wokingham Board of Magistrates, while sentencing a 15 year-old boy, he will take steps to remove Mr. Hackett's name from the list of magistrates.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Attorney-General (1) whether he is aware of the statement recently made by Mr. Leonard Hackett, J.P., during a case at Wokingham Juvenile Court on 19th October last; and if he will have Mr. Hackett's name removed from the list of magistrates:
(2) with reference to the Lord Chancellor's letter sent to the hon. Member for Brixton on 17th November last, what assurances were obtained from Mr. L. A. Hackett, J.P.; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that the removal of Mr. Hackett from the Commission of the Peace would not be justified.
The boy in the case, who is almost 16, was charged with, and admitted, an act of buggery with a younger boy, whose father had caught him in the act and struck him. He also admitted six offences of larceny; he has been convicted on previous occasions; and he appeared to the court to be wholly unrepentant and resentful of the treatment he had received from the other boy's father. Mr. Hackett, on behalf of all the members of the bench, addressed him in severe terms in an endeavour to impress on him the gravity of the matter and in the course of his remarks expressed the view that a thrashing was the kind of treatment the accused might expect to receive from his fellow citizens if he continued to misbehave in this way.
My noble Friend has received written assurances from Mr. Hackett and the other justices who were members of the


court that in the newspaper reports of the case this part of Mr. Hackett's address was taken out of its context, with the result that those reports were misleading in that they implied that Mr. Hackett would if he could have pronounced a sentence of corporal punishment. My noble Friend accepts those assurances.

Mr. Fletcher: While nobody would wish to condone the offences committed by this boy, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he approves the statement which the magistrate is reported to have made:
You deserve a thrashing that will leave you unconscious for 48 hours.

The Attorney-General: I do not think there is any occasion for me to comment further upon that statement.

Mr. Lipton: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman address himself to the contents of the Lord Chancellor's letter to me, in which the Lord Chancellor gave as his excuse for taking no action, first, that Mr. Hackett had been misreported and, secondly, that he himself had no intention of suggesting that the boy should be beaten? As the two bases on which the Lord Chancellor decided to take no action have been proved to be false and misleading—[HON. MEMBERS: "They have not"]—as they have been proved to be false and misleading, will the Attorney-General say that in these circumstances, in view of the outrageous remarks, which he has not yet fully quoted and which I have in front of me, he will, first, tender an apology to the reporters who conveyed an accurate report of the proceedings, and second, in view of the outrageous statements that were made by Mr. Hackett, to which the Attorney-General has not referred, order his removal from the magistrates' bench forthwith, as he is a quite unfit person to sit in judgment on anybody?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member cannot have listened to the last part of my Answer when I said that in the newspaper reports part of Mr. Hackett's address was taken out of context. If the hon. Member has seen the reports which were taken, which were not reports of the whole proceedings, he will at least recognise that the magistrate

made it quite clear that the court had no powers of this kind itself whatever and made it quite clear, as I have said in my statement, that he was seeking to indicate that a thrashing was the kind of treatment that the boy would receive at the hands of his fellow citizens.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this matter now.

Mr. Lipton: On a point of order. I would like to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. If it is in order on the Motion for the Adjournment to move for the removal of a magistrate, I shall be happy to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment. If, however, you rule that it cannot be done on the Adjournment and that it must be done by way of Notice of Motion on the Order Paper, perhaps I should follow the procedure that has to be followed when seeking to remove a judge from his office. I would be glad of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, in due course, or, perhaps, at the end of Questions, to enable me to decide the correct procedure that I should follow in this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I will consider the matter and let the hon. Member know.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Excavations, Windmill Hill

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Works what excavations took place last summer at Windmill Hill, near Avebury, with what result; and what further similar work it is proposed to undertake in future in this area.

The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): During the summer of 1959, an investigation of the Long Barrow at Windmill Hill was carried out on behalf of my Department. This site proved to contain no burials, but produced pottery similar to that from Windmill Hill Camp. A report will be published in due course.
No further work is at present planned for this area, apart from the limited excavation of the North Setting at Avebury mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) on 10th November, 1959.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the very great archaeological importance of the Avebury Stone Circle and the fact that the Ministry of Works has now virtually for the time being finished its operations at Stonehenge, will the Minister look again at the possibility of an expanded programme of work at Avebury?

Lord John Hope: Our programme follows the advice of the 1958 Report of the Ancient Monument Board for England, which recommended that work should be started again on the lines which we have adopted for next year. This is probably the best method.

B.6318 (Road Widening)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Works if he has now completed his consultations with the Ministry of Transport regarding proposals to widen road B.6318; and what steps will be taken to safeguard the Roman Wall.

Lord John Hope: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and I are still considering what are the best means of improving conditions for traffic along this route.
As my predecessor stated in answer to a Question from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Poole (Captain Pilkington) on 24th June, 1958, arrangements have been made for both Departments to be consulted about all road schemes which affect the Wall and its associated works.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does the Minister agree that this has taken an awfully long time? When does he expect to be in a position to make a final statement? This is a matter which interests great numbers of people. Should not the Minister make a statement about it soon?

Lord John Hope: I will as soon as I can, but a number of alternative proposals have to be considered.

BRITISH RAILWAYS

Mr. D. Price: asked the Prime Minister whether he will put the British Transport Commission directly under the Minister of Transport, so that British Railways may be directly responsible to the House of Commons for their efficiency.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): This would, of course, be a very drastic change, which would require new legislation. As regards the relationship between British Railways and this House, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave on 12th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore).

Mr. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction in the country, and also among people working on British Railways and customers of British Railways, about the present arrangement of answerability for this public service? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to look at the matter again and also, in looking at it, to review the experience of war time, when we had a Minister of War Transport, who, I understand, was prepared to answer Questions in this House about some of the operations of our transport system?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Of course I shall be glad to study this, I say only that it is a very large issue and rather difficult to deal with by way of Question and Answer. It is the whole problem set by nationalisation.

DR. ADENAUER (VISIT)

Mr. Bevan: (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on his recent talks with Dr. Adenauer.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): My talks with the German Chancellor were confidential. I would, however, like to say this about his visit. Among the subjects discussed with Chancellor Adenauer were preparations for the forthcoming Summit Meeting, Germany and Berlin, disarmament, and the political and economic relationships of Western Europe. The result of our talks on these subjects was to confirm that there were no differences between the objectives which both of us were trying to attain.

Mr. Bevan: Did the right hon. Gentleman have any specific exchanges with Dr. Adenauer about the proposals which he discussed in Moscow with Mr. Khrushchev about an area of disengagement in Central Europe or a limitation


of arms in a specific area? Secondly, did the right hon. Gentleman discuss the Oder-Neisse line? Thirdly, did he make proposals to Dr. Adenauer about a West German contribution to funds for underdeveloped areas?

The Prime Minister: Our policy for controlling armaments in an agreed area in Central Europe is set out in the Western proposals which were put forward at the Geneva Conference in May. These were worked out in conjunction with our allies after my visit to Moscow and they are wholly consistent with the communiqué which was issued after the Moscow visit. They are to be found in Command Paper 797.

Mr. Bevan: What about the other questions?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's second question, I did not discuss that matter. As to the third question, it is a subject which came into our discussions.

Mr. Bevan: It there not a great deal of opinion in many countries of the West that as Western Germany has been relieved of a very considerable burden of aims in the course of the last ten years or more, and has had very great help in the development of her economy, it is reasonable to expect her to make a generous contribution to funds for underdeveloped areas?

The Prime Minister: If we are able to work out some joint effort I hope that the German Government will make their contribution.

Mr. Warbey: Does the Prime Minister's reference to the Western so-called peace plan mean that it is wrapped up again in a tight package and that any question of a zone of limited arms in Central Europe is made conditional again on prior acceptance of reunification on Dr. Adenauer's terms?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. If the hon. Member will look at it, he will see that there is no inconsistency between the May position of the joint agreement with the allies and the communiqué issued after my visit to Moscow.

Mr. S. Silverman: Could the Prime Minister, without betraying to the House anything that was confidential between

him and Dr. Adenauer, still assure the House that he is under no kind of obligation, either to Dr. Adenauer or anybody else, that would prevent him, at the Summit Conference, from considering proposals for a disengagement area in Europe on their merits? Can he assure us that there is no prior obligation on his part that would prevent his so doing?

The Prime Minister: I have always made it clear that we are opposed to what is called disengagement. We have said that we are in favour of geographical areas of inspection and ceilings on arms throughout the world. This, in our view, is a sound conception.

Mr. Shinwell: If the Prime Minister's purpose, as it no doubt is, is to promote stability in Europe, would it not have been wise to have extracted an assurance from Dr. Adenauer in these conversations on the lines of General de Gaulle's declaration on the Oder-Neisse line?

The Prime Minister: The object of these visits is to have discussions. They are confidential. They are freely entered into and they are preparatory to discussions which we shall have in Paris with the Western Powers, and I hope that these will be preparatory to a Summit Conference. I do not think that it would be in the interest of or of value to these discussions if I were asked to give a detailed account of everything that we discuss.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Would the Prime Minister say that nothing that results from the conversations with Dr. Adenauer would prevent discussion about the future status of Berlin at the Summit Conference?

The Prime Minister: All our views upon that are laid down as we discussed it before the May conference, and we take up the discussion where the Foreign Ministers' conference ended.

Mr. Gaitskell: Did the right hon. Gentleman discuss with Dr. Adenauer the advisability and possibility of a temporary agreement on Berlin?
Reverting to the proposed zone of controlled disarmament in Central Europe, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when he discussed this with Mr. Khrushchev, it was then


considered to be part of a general agreement covering a lot of other things as well, or was it not regarded as something which might be handled on its own—an initiative which might lead to progress later in other directions?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. It was clear when we discussed it, and it is said in the communiqué, that
They considered that such negotiations could lay the foundations for a stable system of European security.

Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. I asked whether, when he discussed these proposals with Mr. Khrushchev, there was any reference whatsoever to a so-called package deal, or was it not something helpful which might lead to other things but which was not dependent on other political opinions?

The Prime Minister: It was always understood that this subject would be part of the whole German problem.

CENTRAL AFRICA (ADVISORY COMMISSION)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make a statement about the Advisory Commission on Central Africa.
As the House knows, the Constitution of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland is to be reviewed at a conference to be held late in 1960. In preparation for that conference the Government, in consultation with the other Governments concerned, intend to establish an Advisory Commission. The Commission will, as already announced, comprise 26 members drawn equally from the area of the Federation, on the one hand, and from the United Kingdom and certain other Commonwealth countries, on the other, and will include independent members both African and European as well as United Kingdom parliamentary representation.
As I told the House on 21st July, we think that a comprehensive Commission of this kind will not only enable the Governments concerned to approach the conference with the best possible advice; it will also serve the imaginative and constructive purpose of helping to create

a common approach among all concerned to these very difficult problems. The political wisdom of Parliament, the direct experience of Africans and Europeans living in Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the objective advice of distinguished independent minds will thus all be able to make their rightful contribution to this important end.
I come, first, to the terms of reference. I will read them:
In the light of the information provided by the Committee of Officials and of any additional information the Commission may require, to advise the five Governments, in preparation for the 1960 review, on the constitutional programme and framework best suited to the achievement of the objects contained in the Constitution of 1953, including the Preamble.
The House will note that these make special reference to the Constitution of 1953, including the Preamble, with all its safeguards.
At the same time, as I said on 21st July, I regard the Commission as free, in practice, to hear all points of view from whatever quarter and on whatever subject. It will, of course, be for the Commission to decide what use to make of the material which reaches them. I am sure that the House will have full confidence in my noble Friend Lord Monckton's ability to deal with this.
In these cases, I do not think that it is ever wise to be too specific or rigid in interpretation. But the House will see that these terms will permit the Commission to consider the whole field of the redistribution of powers in either direction between the Federation and the territories and to advise on the timing of any programme and the character of any changes in the framework that it may suggest.
I now come to the question of membership. As the House knows, Lord Monckton, despite his other heavy responsibilities, has agreed to give his services as chairman. This is an appointment that has, I feel sure, earned the warm approval of all shades of Parliamentary opinion. The remaining membership will be as follows:
Vice-Chairman—Sir Donald Mac-Gillivray, who will be remembered for his distinguished career in colonial administration and especially as High Commissioner in Malaya.

United Kingdom Independent Members

Mrs. Elspeth Huxley, the well-known writer on African affairs.
Professor D. T. Jack, Professor of Economics at the University of Durham and lately member of the Royal Commission on East Africa.
The Reverend Dr. R. H. W. Shepherd, missionary of the Church of Scotland, formerly Principal of Lovedale and now completing his term as Moderator of the Church of Scotland.

From the Commonwealth

Professor D. C. Creighton. Professor of History at the University of Toronto.
Mr. Frank Menzies, late Crown Solicitor of the State of Victoria in Australia.
We are most grateful to these two distinguished citizens from Canada and Australia for giving up their time to share in this arduous but vital task.

From the Federation

Mr. G. H. Habanyama, Chief Councillor of the Gwembe Tonga Native authority in Northern Rhodesia.
Mr. A. E. P. Robinson, Chairman of Central African Airways.
Sir Victor Robinson, lately Attorney-General of the Federation.
Mr. R. M. Taylor, a company director, formerly Federal Secretary for Finance.

From Southern Rhodesia

Mr. Justice Beadle, Judge of the High Court of Southern Rhodesia.
Mr. C. Ellman-Brown, Chartered Accountant. Formerly a Minister in the Administration of Mr. Garfield Todd.
Mr. Simon Segola. Chief of the Ndebele people.

From Northern Rhodesia

Mr. Woodrow Cross, farmer.
Mr. Lawrence Katilungu, President-General, African Mine Workers' Trade Union, Northern Rhodesia.
Mr. W. H. McCleland, a company director and a member of the Northern Rhodesia Central Race Relations Committee.

From Nyasaland

The Reverend Father Henry Chikuse, Mission School Manager, Nyasaland.

Mr. E. C. Gondwe, Education Officer, Northern Province, who attended the 1951 conference at the Victoria Falls.
Mr. G. G. S. J. Hadlow, Chairman of the Nyasaland Tea Association and formerly a member of the Executive and Legislative Councils, Nyasaland.

A question on which much attention has been focused in Parliament and elsewhere is whether the Commission will command the confidence of the African peoples in the Federation. This is a point to which the Government, naturally, attach the greatest importance. Indeed, our object throughout has been to establish a body which would enjoy the confidence of all the people both in the Federation and in this country. I hope that the membership as now established, with its distinguished Chairman and its independent Commonwealth and African representation, will commend itself to people of good will everywhere. It has been suggested that representatives of African political parties should be included in the Commission. In our view, that would be a complete misconception of the purpose of the Commission, which is intended to bring to this task men of independent mind not committed to extreme views.

What really matters is that African opinion of all shades will be fully heard and objectively recorded. As I have said before, I regard the Commission as free, in practice, to hear all points of view from whatever quarter. As regards the question of receiving written or oral evidence from persons who may be under detention when the Commission is operating, I am sure that this can be arranged. Moreover, we are prepared, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies said on 2nd November, to publish the statements submitted to the Commission and the evidence given before it, subject to the understanding that those witnesses, who do not wish their evidence to be published, may ask that it should not be made public and their wishes will be respected.

Before I finish, I would like to remind the House that this Commission is advisory. It expects to begin work early in February, when the Report of the Committee of Officials which is at present meeting will be available. And


the Commission itself will be followed by a Governmental conference whose conclusions will, in turn, be subject to consideration by Parliament.

With regard to the association of Parliament with the Commission, I have had a number of discussions with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. These are not yet concluded. I hope very much that he will see his way to nominate three Privy Councillors to play their part in this work. A further statement on this point will be made as soon as possible. Meanwhile, I thought it right to announce without further delay the non-parliamentary membership and terms of reference of the Commission.

Mr. Gaitskell: The House will, naturally, wish to study with care the statement which the Prime Minister has made and the names of the members of the Commission so far announced. It is well known that we on this side of the House do not believe that this type of Commission is the right form in which to conduct the preliminary inquiry before the conference. We have always made it plain that we would have preferred a United Kingdom committee, probably of a Parliamentary kind, because we believe that this would produce a more objective report, and, also, that it would not run into the various difficulties inherent in trying to obtain representatives who can really represent the people of the various territories in the Federation.
If, however, as is clear, the Government are determined to proceed with this type of Commission, which is of a representative kind, we would still feel it unfortunate that in a Commission of 26 members, only five are African and that out of 13 from Africa itself only five are Africans, although clearly the people most concerned with the outcome of the report are the millions of Africans in these territories. May I also ask the Prime Minister whether he has observed that of the five African representatives no fewer than three are dependent upon the Governments of the territories for their income? Is not this somewhat unwise, if one is anxious to obtain a completely independent view?
There are three other points I must raise. First, is the Prime Minister still

determined to limit any United Kingdom Parliamentary representation to Privy Councillors? If so, can he give us any significant reason why this should be so? Are there any important precedents for it? Would it not be wiser to leave ourselves in this matter a great deal more room than is possible if we limit representation in this way?
Secondly, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that it is of the most vital importance, if the Advisory Commission is to have any hope of success, that it should be acceptable to the African people as a whole, including the African political movements? Is it not obvious that if, as unfortunately may happen, the African political movements were to boycott the Commission, a great deal of its value would be lost? In view of this fact, is it not extremely desirable that the Government should proceed at once to the release or bringing to trial of the detainees from Nyasaland, and can he not at least release Dr. Banda? This, I am sure, would make a very favourable impact upon African opinion.
Finally, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question on the terms of reference, to which we attach the utmost importance? It is well known that, rightly or wrongly, much African opinion is still opposed to federation. Much opinion in Nyasaland, indeed the overwhelming opinion there, according to the Devlin Report, is against federation. Is it not the fact that the Advisory Commission would be far more likely to win the support, or at least the tolerance, of the African people if it could be made perfectly plain that the Commission was completely free in its terms of reference to consider not only federation, but other forms of association as well?
Is the Prime Minister aware that if the Commission is bound to consider only federation, whatever the evidence submitted, it will seem to be of little use to some of those giving evidence to give it at all? In those circumstances, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider once again his interpretation of, or his opinion on, the specific terms of reference and to give us the assurance that the Commission will be able to consider any forms of association which seem to it appropriate in its deliberations?

The Prime Minister: First, the representation. We have, of course, discussed this together. I think that it is desirable that we make the representation of Privy Councillors [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] We have discussed that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because I think that it would be wise to do so and helpful to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] However, in our discussions the right hon. Gentleman, as I understood, was chiefly concerned with the last point which he raised. As to the progressive releases and the return to general good government and order, I think that that is going on. My right hon. Friend made a statement the other day. In Nyasaland, the number of detainees is continually decreasing, and I have every hope that further progress will be made.
But I understood from our conversations—I do not wish to reveal them—that the third point was really the major point which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had in mind. I want to make it clear, as I tried to say, that the Commission can, of course, hear any evidence of any kind on any subject. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Can it consider other forms of association?" I would have thought that the phrase which I tried to interpret in the terms of reference—
considered the whole field of the redistribution of powers in either direction"—
is a pretty wide one and really covers the point at issue, other forms of association being covered by those "powers" whether greater, or changed, or smaller, which really do affect the answer.
I am bound to say that I would think it wiser not to add to the statement which I have made, and which I hope, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. and right hon. Friends will find acceptable. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss it further with me, I am very ready to do so. I think, and I think that he feels, that it would be better today to let the House consider the situation, read the statement, consider the names, and then see whether it is possible to reach agreement, for I am persuaded, whatever the differences, that we—everybody in the House—would like to see a non-party approach to this problem if it can be achieved.

Mr. Gaitskell: We are prepared to continue discussions with the Prime Minister. We are anxious to make our contribution. We believe that this Commission cannot succeed unless the terms of reference are so interpreted as I have earlier described. Is the Prime Minister aware that our difficulty over the form of words which he used today is that it appears still to be limited by the reference to the framework which itself is taken from the terms of reference which specifically refer to federation? That is our difficulty. If we could get rid of that word and have alternative words—as I say, other forms of association would be possible—it would make a substantial difference.

The Prime Minister: The terms of reference have been agreed. [HON. MEMBERS: "By whom?"] By all the members who indicated their willingness to join. I tried to make as wide and generous an interpretation of the terms of reference as possible, and I think that when Members look at them they will see that they do include a very wide possibility for Lord Monckton and his colleagues to conduct their affairs in such a way as to bring about the result we all wish. I certainly would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman—knowing his views, I think that he will respond to that appeal—that we should today, perhaps, consider the implications of what he has said and of what I have said, in the hope of reaching agreement on this matter.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that the words to which he referred in his statement are among those which must cause some disquiet? The words are that the Commission will be free to
consider the whole field of the redistribution of powers in either direction between the Federation and the territories and to advise on the timing of any programme and the character of any changes in the framework that they may suggest.
I put it to the Prime Minister that this clearly supposes that the territories should remain inside the Federation. That is the whole supposition. Indeed, the Prime Minister has gone back, I think, on the words that he used on 21st July. I put it bluntly to the right hon. Gentleman: is it open to the Commission, if it so desires, to recommend that


Nyasaland should secede from the Federation altogether?

The Prime Minister: This Commission is appointed to review an existing Constitution, to which its terms of reference naturally relate. I am sure that it is the wish of the House that a solution should emerge acceptable to all the races in the territories concerned. The terms of reference, in my opinion, give the Commission full scope to advise us on how best that object can be achieved, but, of course, if the Commission thinks that it could not fulfil its task to its satisfaction within the terms of reference no doubt it would say so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have every confidence in the chairman and the membership.

Mr. Hoy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the announcement of the members of the Commission will bring great disappointment to Scotland? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Do not right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite know the close association between Scotland and Nyasaland? Would not the Prime Minister have thought that one ought to have had some direct representation from the Scottish Church other than the Moderator on the Commission?

The Prime Minister: I do not want to be unhelpful. I had thought that perhaps the inclusion in the membership of one of the United Kingdom members, Dr. Shepherd, who has been Moderator of the Church of Scotland—

Mr. Hoy: Not now.

The Prime Minister: —who is now completing, just finishing, his term as Moderator, would have been regarded as representative of the independence of the Scottish Church.

Mr. Ross: Will he be allowed in?

Mr. Foot: May I ask the Prime Minister, first, whether, if witnesses were to appear before the Commission advocating the union of Nyasaland with Tanganyika as an alternative to the present arrangement, that would be within the terms of reference of the Commission? Secondly, in relation to the detainees, will he bear in mind the precedent set in the Gold Coast, in 1948, when Dr. Nkrumah and other interned

political leaders, interned without trial, were released before the Commission of inquiry began its sittings?

The Prime Minister: On the first question, I would just repeat what I said as to the character of the evidence anyone may wish to give. I said that I regarded the Commission as being
free, in practice, to hear all points of view from whatever quarter and on whatever subject.
I think that that would cover the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question.
With regard to the second, I said that arrangements would be made for the purpose he has in mind, and I think that that can be arranged, will be arranged. I am hopeful that we shall have still further progress and that a smaller number of people will be detained.

Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House could serve no good purpose at all in joining the Commission if there were any ambiguity about what the terms of reference are, because that ambiguity would give rise to considerable misunderstanding in Africa itself and we would start work on the Commission under a cloud? Is it not insufficient to say that all kinds of evidence can be heard by the members of the Commission? We understand that quite clearly.
What we are concerned about is not in relation to what evidence the Commission can hear, but what recommendations the Commission can make. That is the important point in our minds. There appears to be, if not an inhibition upon the Commission, at least sufficient ambiguity to make it impossible for us to identify ourselves with it until that ambiguity is cleared up satisfactorily.

The Prime Minister: There is, first, the Commission, then there is the conference, and then there is Parliament. I think it is important to see this as a phase in a process which it is hoped will be helpful.
These are not very easy matters to deal with; they are very complicated and I know that we all want to try and get as near together as we can on this. I have tried to make a gloss on the terms of reference, which I might perhaps read once more. These terms will permit the Commission, first, to consider the whole


field of the redistribution of powers in either direction between the Federation and the territories, secondly, to advise on the timing of any programme, and, lastly, on the character of any changes in the framework which it might suggest.
I should have thought, and I appeal to the House on this, that those are reasonably wide terms for the Commission to work on. As I have said in the last paragraph of my statement, I am anxious, and I believe that the House is, too, that we should, if possible, reach agreement. I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not attempt now, off the cuff, to make a gloss on a gloss.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Prime Minister aware that many ardent supporters of federation, including Sir Roy Welensky, are prepared to reconsider the redistribution of powers between the Federal and territorial Governments? This has always been on the agenda for the 1960 review, and presumably, therefore, it is on the agenda for this advance Commission. The real test with which we are concerned is whether the Commission can consider and pronounce on the need to redistribute powers outwards from the Federation if necessary.

The Prime Minister: We have to set about this task with the Constitution

that exists. The Commission has been informed to advise the Governments who have to meet in conference.
I tried to answer fairly the question that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) raised. I can only add this. Of course, it may be—pray God it will not be—that the problems of Central Africa are insoluble, or it may be that within what we are trying to do they are insoluble. In that case, I have no doubt that a Commission of this kind will find a way of expressing its opinion. We are trying to see whether there is a way along what everybody believes to be the best lines. If it can be found, and if we can get the confidence of all concerned who seek to advise us how to do it along those lines, we will do it. We should not give up the job as hopeless from the start.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we can debate this now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — MR. SPEAKER MORRISON'S RETIREMENT BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(ANNUITIES TO BE PAID TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE WILLIAM SHEPHERD MORRISON AND AFTER HIS DEATH TO HIS WIDOW.)

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, to leave out "under Her Majesty".
I have tabled this Amendment so that we can have an explanation and some clarification from the Leader of the House. I should like to know precisely what the words "under Her Majesty" mean. We know that these words occur in very old Acts of Parliament and that they refer to such posts as governor-generalships which have been discussed under the terms of the Bill, but in later years the question of what these words might mean has changed because of the nationalised industries
Would employment under one of the nationalised industries come under that definition? We know, for example, that a previous Speaker became a member of the Board of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Do those words mean that ex-Speaker Morrison would be able to take employment with the B.B.C., or I.T.V., or any other nationalised industry? It is quite common these days to find Conservative Members of Parliament, and Ministers, leaving high office and becoming chairmen of nationalised industries. For example, the Minister of State for Scotland in the last Government retired and reappeared as chairman of a nationalised board. This conversion to nationalisation occurred spectacularly overnight.
I speak this way because Lord Strathclyde is a constituent of mine. In the event of ex-Speaker Morrison being offered the chairmanship or the membership of a nationalised board, would the restrictions on the pension be applicable? If ex-Speaker Morrison's pension is to be reduced while he is Governor-General of Australia, is it the view of the Leader

of the House that the rule would apply if ex-Speaker Morrison were offered a post as a director of a concern in the City?
Members opposite do not think that it is in any way disgraceful to be a chairman or a director of a brewery company, or a member of the board of a distilling concern. I would like to know what objection the Home Secretary would have to applying the same restriction and regulation against the appearance of ex-Speaker Morrison as a director of a big insurance company, a big brewery company, or in a lucrative appointment in the City.
I do not see how a distinction can be made. I suggest that it is possible that a great vested interest in the City might try to exploit the dignity of this House by offering an ex-Speaker a position and then gaining publicity by the fact that he had been the Speaker of the House of Commons. I do not know whether ex-Speaker Morrison would accept such an appointment, but I suggest that if there is to be a restriction on the pension when ex-Speaker Morrison has in an appointment such as the Governor-General of Australia, the argument must be that it would, in the same way, affect the position if ex-Speaker Morrison appeared on a board of directors or had any lucrative employment in the City.
We ought, therefore, to hear from the Home Secretary why these words are included in the Bill, and what his objections are to what is a reasonable and logical Amendment.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I support the Amendment.
The Committee is entitled to an explanation from the Government of the limits which are intended by Clause 1. As it stands, the pension which the House is asked to provide for ex-Speaker Morrison will be reduced in the event, and in the event only, of his accepting a
place, office or employment under Her Majesty.
The point which I think is of constitutional importance is why there should be such proposed reductions in the event of an ex-Speaker accepting employment under Her Majesty compared with any other employment, whether of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) or any other kind.
Speaking for myself, I can well understand that there are very good constitutional reasons why the Committee should say that an ex-Speaker should receive a pension, but that it will be dependent upon his not obtaining any other employment of any kind. During Second Reading a view was expressed, which aroused a good deal of sympathy on both sides of the House, that the position of Mr. Speaker, and, therefore, of an ex-Speaker, is so unique and distinguished that the House has a responsibility to ensure that an ex-Speaker is relieved of any kind of financial embarrassment. During the course of history it has always been assumed that an ex-Speaker should retire, I will not say into obscurity but into a condition in which he was free from all financial embarrassment, and that if he wanted to undertake some work of public importance or benefit it should not be conditional upon financial remuneration.
The Speaker of the House, as the First Commoner of the Realm, is in a position with which no possible comparison can be made. A comparison was made on Second Reading with the position of ex-judges, but through several centuries it has been assumed that the position, dignity and eminence of the Speaker of the House is such that, once retired, he should be completely removed from politics and from financial embarassment and dependence of any kind.
Here, for the first time in history, we have the case of an ex-Speaker who has been invited to accept, and has accepted, a position of very great responsibility under the Crown. I should have thought that if it were at all consonant with the dignity of an ex-Speaker to accept any other appointment after he ceases to serve the House, and if there were any exception to the general rule, it would be only in the case of accepting the position of Governor-General of one of the great Dominions, Australia and Canada. I can well understand the argument that of all the possible range of offers which may be open to an ordinary individual, for an ex-Speaker perhaps the only offer consonant with his dignity is that of Governor-General of Canada or Australia.
In the Bill we are concerned with the traditional right and function of the House in making provision for the

dignity of an ex-Speaker. Personally, I regret that any ex-Speaker should accept any paid employment at all, but I have referred to the possible limitations on that general rule. I would have thought that any ex-Speaker accepting any employment at all would have preferred that the pension which the House traditionally provided for an ex-Speaker should be suspended completely during the time of any such employment.
4.15 p.m.
Having said that, however, I think that we are entitled to hear from the Leader of the House his view on the limitations contained in the phrase "under Her Majesty." Are we to take it that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with the views which my hon. Friend and I have expressed, that this particular appointment is so exceptional and is comprehended by the words "under Her Majesty," and that these would, therefore, exclude any other employment? If that interpretation is right, may I point out to the Leader of the House that if ex-Speaker Morrison, after relinquishing his appointment as Governor-General of Australia, were to accept any other "place, office or employment" which was not under Her Majesty, there would be no abatement even of half of the pension? That is a contingency which I do not think the Committee would regard as sensible or consonant with the dignity of the House of Commons.
If we leave the Clause as it stands, there is an abatement of the pension in the event, and in the event only, of an ex-Speaker accepting an office or employment under Her Majesty. This leaves unresolved what would be the position if either ex-Speaker Morrison or any other ex-Speaker were to accept an office or employment not under Her Majesty. That is an event which I should not contemplate with any complacency. Nor do I think that other hon. Members would accept it with any complacency. I therefore think that the Clause as drafted is perhaps indefinite, and I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to clear up the constitutional point which my hon. Friend has raised.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I rise now, because I think that the position


under the Clause is a good deal simpler and more straightforward than either the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) or the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) have suggested. The words of Clause 1 (1) are:
holds any place, office or employment under Her Majesty. …
More senior members of the Committee will know that it is notoriously not easy to identify all places, offices or employment under Her Majesty, but, clearly, the Clause would include such offices as appointment to the Civil Service, a judicial appointment or appointment as governor-general. It would not include—and this is the answer to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire—appointments to offices which are laid down by the House under Statute. It certainly would not include appointments to the boards of nationalised industries or to the B.B.C.
There is a clear distinction, which is accepted and widely understood, between those offices which are offices under the Crown and appointed by the Crown and those which are held under Statute passed by the full authority of Parliament. I suggest that the position is much clearer than hon. Members have indicated.
The effect of the Amendment is clear. It would be to abate the pension of Lord Dunrossil if he holds any other appointment, not only a public office. I fully realise that the Amendment is in line with the feeling voiced by a number of hon. Members opposite when the Resolution was debated in Committee and the Bill was debated on Second Reading, that the Speaker should retire completely on giving up his office and should not accept any employment, either under the Crown or directorships in the City.
As hon. Members opposite know, I listened to the whole of the debate on the Committee stage of the Resolution and on Second Reading as well, and I can only repeat what was said by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on that earlier occasion. My right hon. Friend pointed out that this abatement Clause has been in Speakers' Retirement Bills since 1817 and he stressed the importance of keeping the whole Bill in traditional form, apart from the introduction of a widow's pen-

sion, so as to avoid subjecting the Speakership to the strains and stresses of the day.
There is one other point which I should like to emphasise to the Committee, because I think that it is important. In a number of public service pension arrangements it is customary for an abatement provision to operate only where the pensioner gets employment in some other public office. To extend this principle to cases of private employment, which is what hon. Members opposite who have moved and supported this Amendment wish to do, would be an innovation with very far-reaching implications, and I suggest to the Committee that it would be quite wrong to use this occasion and the office of Speaker as a vehicle for an innovation of this kind.
Hon. Members feel sincerely on this point and have put their arguments this afternoon, but the principle behind this Amendment would be a considerable innovation to our proceedings in a wide range of public pension arrangements, and I do not think that Mr. Speaker Morrison's Retirement Bill is the right occasion on which to make this departure on principle.

Mr. Charles Pannell: The Financial Secretary has said that the terminology of the Bill before us is an old one, going back to 1817. That seems to run counter to that which I read out to the House last week, when the then Prime Minister, Mr. Baldwin, on 27th June, 1928, laid down the law on this matter. He did not include private offices in the sort of office that a Speaker ought to take. He said:
The Speaker is almost the only man in politics—I include the Prime Minister in the list—who is completely debarred from entering any kind of business or from seeking to promote his own welfare, and it has always seemed"—
this is the relevant part—
and rightly seemed, that in the Speaker's case, as in my view in the Prime Minister's case, when his term of office is done he should not enter into the ordinary competition of the market-place with other people, but should preserve for the rest of his life the dignity of the great office to which he had been called."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1928; Vol. 219, c. 546–7.]
Undoubtedly, those were the arguments with which the Prime Minister of the day convinced the House when an abatement of the pension was being


moved by the deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Clynes, some years ago. Therefore, it seems to me that it was in the mind of the Prime Minister of the day that Mr. Speaker Whitley should not go into another office. He did. It so happened that it was Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who was Prime Minister at the time, and, incidentally, Leader of the party when the deputy Leader moved that abatement, who conferred office upon him.
When I spoke before, I was more concerned with the link with the Crown than the constitutional position, and I am still of the opinion that the credit of all concerned would have been better served if we had had nothing to do with this pension at all while there was another Crown appointment.
Our first question last week was that of the link with the Crown. I was reading the other day some lines by Sir Wilfred Lawson, written in 1896, in which he referred to the fact that Mr. Speaker's coach is drawn by Mr. Whitbread's horses, because it had long been a custom for the Speaker of the House of Commons, usually prior to taking office, to hold a brewery directorship. He went on to say that it seemed rather symbolic at that time, when the brewing industry was rampant in the country, that they should drag the Speaker's coach. I do not know, but probably the brewing interest is not so strong nowadays. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not want to be dragged into an argument as to whether the brewery interest is or is not as rampant as in days gone by. I am sure that that would be out of order. I do not think that it is so venomous as it was, and I will leave it at that.
One can well imagine certain spheres of commercial activity to which an ex-Speaker might go and which this House would deprecate. Ex-Speaker Morrison has already made his debut on television. He may be encouraged to do that still further—to become chairman of the Brains Trust, or something like that. I do not know whether that is the sort of spectacle that we should look forward to seeing.
I should have thought that the omission of these words as proposed in the Amendment put the position beyond

peradventure. I would be prepared to look at the position again to ensure that the Speaker, when in retirement from the House, went to another place if he wanted to benefit that place with his deliberations, but not that he should be associated with a dubious form of commercial activity. I have mentioned television and other hon. Members can think of other things.
I think that we should accept the Amendment as reasonable and logical.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: The Amendment has brought before the Committee something of profound constitutional importance. It is whether a former Speaker should be debarred from any form of remunerative employment. There are arguments on both sides. I am prepared to accept the validity of the argument that the Speakership of the House is a position of such dignity and honour that it is demeaning the reputation of this House that the holder of the office should pass into any other arena after having been Speaker. If that is the case—and if we accept that argument—then its consequences ought to be made perfectly clear, when a Speaker is elected, that hereafter he will be discouraged from indulging in any other form of activity after he has been Speaker.
But there are other arguments. We want, as far as possible, not to confine the office of Speaker to elderly gentlemen. I think that it is very important that we should have young Speakers. It is fairly obvious that useful Speakership cannot endure for more than about ten or twelve years. If we have a young Speaker he may not be much more than 60 or perhaps under 60 at the time he relinquishes the Speakership and it is rather hard that he should, for purposes of practical employment, be sterilised. I rise not to argue one way or another on those lines, because I have an open mind and both those sets of arguments appeal to me.
If the Bill is to have any useful result it must make a clear declaration of the principles and rules involved. It is unfair to elect a Member of this House as a Speaker without his position being clearly and unequivocally stated. If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is unable to give a ruling today,


I appeal to him to promise that a clear and definite ruling will very shortly be given, on behalf of all parties in the House, as to the kind of employment from which a Member is debarred after having held the uniquely honourable position of Speaker of this House.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I dissent from the Amendment, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not press it. I do not think that it is necessary; on the contrary, I think that it is undesirable. If we wish to lay down conditions regarding the behaviour of a retired Speaker we ought to lay them down at the time of his appointment. We should make them part of the tradition of the appointment, whereupon the resistance of the Speaker-Elect to taking the Chair might become a little more real.
It is unfair to seek to impose such conditions at the time of retirement, especially by the means proposed in the Amendment, namely, the abatement of his pension. If the Amendment were carried it would be possible for a retired Speaker to take up a very controversial business appointment, the remuneration of which was £3,999 a year, and not be affected. Yet such an appointment might be that of chairman of the Greyhound Racing Association. The House is very jealous not only of its own repute, but of those who serve it, and it is undoubtedly our wish that a retired Speaker should not engage in activities unbecoming to one who has held a position of such authority and esteem. We must place trust in those whom we appoint to such a high office.
Such a condition as is proposed by my hon. Friend has not been considered necessary in similar Bills in the past, so why should it be considered necessary now? The temptation to go into the City must have been as strong in former years as it is now. It is true that in the past there has not been the refuge—if that is a suitable word—of an appointment to a nationalised industry, but such appointments are in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. They can see, even if a retired Speaker cannot, what may or may not be a suitable appointment for him in the future.
The Committee need have no fears on this score. If it has, however, this is not

the way to express them, or to find a way of remedying them. There is a cross-reference here to other public service pensions. I admit that the pension we give a retiring Speaker is in the nature of a social security pension rather than a long service pension, and that that in some respects distinguishes it from the pension paid to a civil servant after forty years' service.
Nevertheless, the principle of abatement is written into the code of public service persons, and is confined to other appointments under Her Majesty. We do not pursue retiring public servants into every branch of their post-retirement activities, and ask them what fees they are receiving and what expenses they must set off against them, for the purposes of deciding whether or not they are receiving £4,000 a year.
Moreover, I understand that it would be possible for a retired Speaker to collect a miscellany of outside appointments, none of which carried emoluments of equal or greater amount than that of the annuity but which, in total, exceeded it. That is a question of interpretation upon which I venture with some diffidence in the presence of the learned Attorney-General, but surely we do not want to set up a code of evasion, under a Bill passed by this House, so that we not only have tax "fiddles" but retired Speaker "fiddles".
It is disgraceful to attempt to circumscribe the activities of a retired Speaker, whom we must trust to behave in a manner becoming the office he has held. If we find that a retired Speaker transgresses what we believe to be a reasonable code of behaviour, we may have to approach the matter in a tougher spirit, but no such occasion has arisen.
The only new factor in this situation is the appointment of the retired Speaker to be Governor-General of Australia. There is no suggestion that he would have gone into the City. The special interest in the Bill arises from an entirely different cause, which can be considered separately on its merits, if need be, when we consider the major question of abatement in principle, but I strongly dissent from the Amendment and I hope that my hon. Friend will not test opinion on this or the other side of the Committee.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: When the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) was speaking, I understood him to couple former Prime Ministers with former Speakers.

Mr. C. Pannell: No. I was referring to an occasion in 1928 when Lord Baldwin, then Prime Minister, made a pronouncement as to what Speakers should do when they retired, and I quoted it.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I am aware of that, but: I understood him to couple with it the circumstances of former Prime Ministers accepting appointments after retirement although in receipt of pensions from this House. I imagine that former Prime Ministers are in a position similar to that of former Speakers—not in such quite a unique position, because there are more of them, but nevertheless in a similar position. Yet I read last week that a former Prime Minister of this House was receiving £150 a time on a lecture tour of America. I do not know whether the report is true or not, but, if it is, where do we draw the line in these things.

Mr. Pannell: Lord Baldwin drew the line.

Sir A. V. Harvey: We should keep a sense of proportion in this matter. As far as I know, no former Speaker has ever failed this House in his period of retirement. I agree that the House has every right to discuss this matter freely, but I think that we are making very heavy weather of it. As the Financial Secretary said, this is not the occasion to amend the law or to create a new regulation which will affect other individuals. We are now considering the retirement pension of ex-Speaker Morrison.
This is also the wrong time and place to discuss Members' pensions. I agree that there is a very strong case for the matter being dealt with urgently, but this is not the time to do it. I will willingly support it at a later date.
I feel very sorry for Lord Dunrossil because of the things that have been said. He was criticised for appearing on television, but today almost everyone has to appear on television if he receives any appointment. Once he is on he has to go on with it. He cannot get out of it. It may have been unfortunate that Lord Dunrossil appeared on television, but I

am sure that he did so with the best of intentions—and I do not suppose that he was paid for it.
About eleven years ago, when the Labour Party was in office, a Bill called the Mountbatten Inheritance Bill was brought to this House from another place. A few of those who were then in Opposition spoke against it. They said that it ought to apply to every woman in a similar position. We all realise why the Bill was brought in at that time, and I do not want to drag it up again. But the Leader of the Opposition made a rather unfortunate remark during the Second Reading debate. He said:
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the emoluments of the Governor-General of Australia. I see that it has been said that they are not enough. If that is so—and it may well be the case—I venture to say that it is a matter for the Government of Australia to put right."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 1178–9.]
It is not our business to discuss what the Australians arrange with Lord Dunrossil. In my experience, the Australian Government are no less generous than this Government in dealing with Ministers or ex-Members of Parliament. I think it a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman referred to it in the way that he did. We know that Lord Mount-batten went to India as Viceroy and that legislation to enable the trust to be broken was enacted to facilitate his sojourn in India.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting far from the Amendment.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I am sorry, Sir Gordon. I was merely illustrating how on a previous occasion a gentleman who had taken a high office was placed in very difficult circumstances. That was our business then, but today this is not our business.

Mr. Pannell: The matter mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, which has been ruled out of order, might be corrected in relation to the legislation to which the hon. Gentleman referred by saying that it was enacted after Lord Mountbatten left India.

The Chairman: Perhaps we had better not pursue the matter.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I will not pursue it, Sir Gordon.
The appointment which Lord Dunrossil has accepted, at the request of the Prime Minister of Australia and of Her Majesty, is a very high office. I hope we are all proud of the fact that an ex-Member of this House is to hold that office. It is non-political, and I do not think the question of his pay comes into it at all. I personally would like to see Lord Dunrossil accept the full pension at the outset and not half of it.
If this Committee proposes to lay down rules and regulations about what ex-Speakers ought or ought not to do—whether a man is to live in a cottage in Gloucestershire and never do another thing in his life—I think that we shall be exceeding our responsibilities. That is not a matter for the House of Commons. We should leave it to the good sense of ex-Speakers. If an ex-Speaker accepted a directorship of one of the big banks, one perhaps might be entitled to criticise the appointment, because by so doing an ex-Speaker would be taking an appointment in the ordinary run of commerce. But Lord Dunrossil has accepted a high office under the Crown and is not there to make a profit at all. I hope the Committee will come to its senses and get this affair over and leave Lord Dunrossil to undertake his great office.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) started by saying that he hoped the Committee would keep a sense of proportion. That is exactly what some of us are trying to do. I was amazed at the outburst of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). He is a member of the T.U.C., and he knows that the T.U.C. is concerned about retirement pensions being taken into consideration.
I have received two letters from constituents who are troubled because they find that their retirement pension, amounting to £4 for man and wife, has been reduced as a result of having taken up part-time work at which they earn more than £3 a week. A lot of people cannot understand why there should be anything wrong about abating half a pension amounting to £4,000 a year if there is apparently nothing wrong about abating a pension of £4 a week when the recipient earns over £3 a week. If hon. Members can explain that to ordinary

people—of which there are tens of thousands in this country whose pensions have been abated—they are more fortunate than I am, because I cannot get my constituents to understand why it is that their pension should be abated while there are objections to abating a pension of £4,000 a year.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Member should explain to his constituents that at the age of seventy, when they would have reached the proper statutory retirement age, they will be on exactly the same terms as Lord Dunrossil.

The Chairman: Order. The discussion is getting far from the Amendment.

Mr. Fernyhough: May I assure the noble Lord that my constituents will find his answer "very satisfactory."
Until comparatively recently, the Speaker was the one Member of this House who was given a pension. Neither the Prime Minister nor anyone else got a pension for many decades. From 1817, or whatever date it was that my hon. Friend mentioned—

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Pannell: It was 1761.

Mr. Fernyhough: From that time a pension has been given to the Speaker on his retirement, presumably for the sole purpose of enabling him to lead a dignified and useful life in keeping with the high office which he held.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that it is all right for an ex-Speaker to accept any job in keeping with the dignity of this House—a governorship or something like that—but that if he does so and the emoluments exceed his pension, then the pension will be abated. But if an ex-Speaker went into the City, if he accepted a commerical office, no matter how well paid, that would not be taken into consideration.
I believe that the Speaker's pension was fixed at a sufficiently high figure to enable him to lead a useful and dignified life on his retirement without the necessity of seeking additional remuneration. I say to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that I am prepared to come to their constituencies and prove to any audience that £4,000 a year is sufficient to enable any man to live as he would wish without having to seek any other income.
I hope that the Leader of the House and the Financial Secretary will not misunderstand us. We are merely stating a point of view which is widely held. Lord Dunrossil always treated me with great kindness. I have no enmity towards him, because I had nothing from him but kindness. But we must voice the opinion of the people we represent, and many feel deeply on this matter. If any hon. Member does not believe that, I will show him the letters I have received. It is our duty to state the point of view of the people we represent. A married couple who retire at the age of 65 and receive a pension of £4 a week find it difficult to believe that a pension of £4,000 a year—

The Chairman: Order. That has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Fernyhough: I am making the comparison. Surely I am entitled to point out the difference in the case of an ex-Speaker of this House compared with an old-age pensioner.

The Chairman: We are not discussing the amount of the pension; we are discussing the circumstances in which it will be paid.

Mr. Pannell: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. The effect of this Amendment would be to debar future ex-Speakers from accepting any form of work and putting themselves in the labour market. In effect, it is an earnings rule. If they earn a certain amount, whether from an office under the Crown or an office in a private undertaking, they would be debarred from taking their pensions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Half of it."] They would be debarred from receiving some of the emoluments laid down. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) is advancing an argument of equity. After all, that is a principle which runs from the Speaker—the prime representative of the Commons, which, in turn, represents the people of England—to old-age pensioners. The principle of equity applies to old-age pensioners and it should apply to the Speaker. I would have thought it was logical for my hon. Friend to make that analogy.

The Chairman: The hon. Member was discussing the amount of the pension. We are discussing the circumstances in

which a pension is abated, and we can discuss only those circumstances.

Mr. Fernyhough: I am sorry, but what I was trying to do was to incorporate remarks on this Amendment which I would certainly make on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, if I were not permitted to make them now. I was only trying to save the time of the Committee. I merely wanted hon. Members to understand that, from my point of view and that of a lot of other people, there seem to be two standards, and it is not easy to convince the electorate that there ought to be two standards. I have no intention or trying to convince the electorate that there should be, but I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Leader of the House will try to understand that there is a substantial body of opinion outside this House which shares the point of view and the sentiments which some of us have tried to express on this matter.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Houghton: On the question of abatement, throughout the debate so far no one has mentioned that, in respect of the National Insurance retirement pension, ex-Speaker Morrison will be subject to the same earnings rule as everyone else who is drawing a National Insurance retirement pension.

Mr. Fernyhough: But the consequences will not be as bad.

Mr. Houghton: My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) says the consequences will not be as bad, but I do not think that is the point. The question is whether the same conditions should apply to the National Insurance retirement pension, whomsoever may draw it. There are many instances, quite apart from retired Speakers, of persons drawing vocational pensions and National Insurance pensions in addition. They are subject to exactly the same rules as all others in regard to conditions of retirement and the earnings rule thereafter in the case of National Insurance retirement pensions. As regards the vocational pensions, there may be conditions applicable to them which vary from case to case.
The question I want to raise is why the principle in this Clause is different from that which applies to all other public service pensioners under the Superannuation Act, 1834. Section 20 of the Superannuation Act, 1834, is a source of considerable grievance amongst civil servants who retire and are re-employed under Her Majesty, but only under Her Majesty, after retirement. In such cases, there is a limiting provision of the Superannuation Act, 1834, Section 20 of which provides that the pension payable shall be abated to such extent as to ensure that remuneration plus pension shall not exceed total remuneration at the time of retirement. That means that no re-employed civil servant can earn more by re-engagement after retirement than he was earning previously, unless, presumably, in the very rare case of a person being re-engaged in a higher post, the remuneration of which exceeded that of his previous post, and I have never struck a case of that kind.
Where that principle differs from the provisions of this Bill will be plain to the Committee. Where a retiring Speaker accepts another appointment under Her Majesty, with equal or greater emoluments than those he was previously receiving, under this Clause the pension is to be abated as to one-half. That is a quite different principle from that which I have described as applicable to the general run of public service pensions.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury a few moments ago made an allusion to the practice in the public service in regard to abatement being applicable only to other appointments under Her Majesty. He seemed to be relying quite rightly, I thought, on the general practice in the case of public service pensions, but if he relied upon the general practice in public service pensions, why has that general principle of the 1834 Act not been followed in connection with the pensions of retiring Speakers?
That is really the reason why I am raising the point on this Clause. That is not to say, of course, that the provisions of the 1834 Act are universally accepted amongst retired public servants. On the contrary, they have made representations against that limiting provision to one

Commission after another. I refer to this only because I am not defending the provisions of the 1834 Act, but merely stating them as being in existence and of universal application in the case of public service pensions.

Mr. Pannell: This is rather old.

Mr. Houghton: On this question of age, I am not sure which comes first.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hen or the egg?

Mr. Pannell: The Speaker in 1761.

Mr. Houghton: My hon. Friend says "The hen or the egg?", but it is a question of whether we bring things into line right from the beginning or change them for other people. There has been plenty of time since 1834 to have brought the conditions of the pension of Mr. Speaker into line with the conditions embodied in that Act for the pensions of public servants generally. I simply do not know why it has not been done. I wish no harm to Mr. Speaker's pension arrangements. I have no feeling that because we are treating other citizens less than justly, we should deal unfairly with Mr. Speaker. Let us remedy injustices where they are and not get them mixed up with other things.

Mr. Ellis Smith: We are a long while doing it.

Mr. Houghton: Of course we are a long while doing it, but that is the duty of this House and the duty of the electorate. If the electorate does not put in office people who promise quickly to remedy some of these injustices, then we are powerless to make greater progress than we do. What I am pleading for is that we should not get entirely different things mixed up and deal less than fairly with one case because we have a sense of injustice in other and more numerous cases.
I ought not to detain the Committee further, because I have made my point. I am asking why there is this difference between the principles of the 1834 Act for public servants generally and the arrangements for the ex-Speaker's pension in the case of his accepting another appointment under Her Majesty.

Mr. Ede: I have received some correspondence in regard


to this matter precisely on the point which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Hough ton).
I have no doubt that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in the office which he held before he was promoted to his present post—for, after all, anything is promotion from the Ministry of Education, unfortunately—must have had brought to his notice the cases of teachers who have responded to the appeals made by the Government that, having retired, they should return to active practice as teachers, and have incurred the limitations on what they now receive, as has just been described so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby. It is quite wrong for us to think that people will not draw these comparisons. I agree that many of them are unjustifiable, but none the less many people will draw them.
5.0 p.m.
There have been one or two phrases used by hon. Members opposite this afternoon which suggest that it is only on this side of the Committee that a grievance is felt about this matter. I would remind the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), however, that the first speech made in the debate on Second Reading after the speeches from the two Front Benches was that by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Lindsay), who started the discussion on the lines on which it has been continued by certain other hon. Members.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I thought the main point in the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Lindsay) last week was the question about appearing on television.

Mr. C. Pannell: No.

Mr. Ede: Those of us who were in the House at the time will recall the speech made by the hon. Member for Solihull. I had the surprise of my life, for I thought he was going to attack my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for having dared to say anything other than immediately to have made a eulogy of the action of the Government in promoting this pension.
I greatly respect the former Speaker of this House. I think he is a man of whom we should all be proud as having

reached the position he did with us and the position he reached in his profession before he entered this House. I understand that without any of the ordinary forms of backing which help a man along he achieved a very high position in that profession. He speedily established in this House a position that was quite independent of any influence other than his own merit, which entitled him to promotion.
I think it came as a shock to all of us when we heard of his accepting the appointment in Australia. Probably the discussion on this Bill has meant that a future ex-Speaker will think a very long time before he accepts a similar appointment. It therefore arises on this Clause whether it ought to be limited in the way the Committee has decided to limit it. The debate the other day on Second Reading will also mean that an ex-Speaker will probably think very long before he goes into the City, or does any of the other things which have been mentioned. After all, very often it is not what appears in the Journals of the House, not what appears in the legislation we pass, but the atmosphere that comes over the House when certain things come up for discussion which really settles what is going to be the tradition of the House and of certain of its Members in future. I do not think we need worry any more about that particular phase of the matter.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Does the right hon. Member differentiate between taking a high appointment at the request of a great Dominion and going into the City? Surely there is a great difference between the two?

Mr. Ede: I do not draw a differentiation. To be quite frank, I think a man who retires from the Chair of this House has reached so high a position that he ought not to lend what he has acquired there to any outside organisation after he has retired.
I welcome the provision in this Bill which gives the widow, if there should be a widow, a pension. A man who has given as much service to this House and to the country as did the last Speaker, when he now has to face what will be the reasonable thing for him to do in the spending of the pension allotted to him, must be reassured that, should he


pre-decease his wife, those of us who have profited in many ways from his work for us think that there need not be as much anxiety on that score as otherwise would be the case. I hope this part of the Bill will be a precedent to be followed in future Bills dealing with ex-Speakers.

Sir G. Nicholson: I would not have risen but for what was said by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). He implied, although I do not know whether he meant to imply it, that it is very difficult to lay down definite rules but that future ex-Speakers will be influenced in their conduct by what has been said in this debate. I would not like it to go out without contradiction that everyone shares his view that it is undesirable for a former Speaker to become a Governor of a great Dominion. I think it a great compliment to this House that Mr. Speaker Morrison should have been invited to take that high office in Australia. I do not know whether the Committee is with me or not in saying that it would be inconsistent with the high office he has held for an ex-Speaker to go into trade or commerce, but, on the other hand, I cannot see why an ex-Speaker who desires to live in the country should not farm.

Mr. Ede: He should not be a farm bailiff?

Sir G. Nicholson: No, but he could certainly farm. I agree that there are grave practical difficulties in laying down a strict code of conduct in black and white. I rose to say that I hope it will not go out as the general feeling of the Committee that it is wrong for Mr. Speaker Morrison, or any other ex-Speaker, to become a Governor of a Dominion. I feel, and I think other hon. Members feel, indirectly flattered that he should be asked to take that job. On the other hand, I personally hope it will go out that it is wrong for future ex-Speakers to go into the arena of trade and commerce.

Mr. William Ross: I do not think many people in the country will be willing to blame Mr. Speaker Morrison or to do anything but praise him for having become Governor-General of Australia. I think that what shocked

a lot of people was that, despite the fact that he had achieved that high office, we should also be voting him a considerable pension.
I know the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) that there is quite a lot of historic association in relation to the actual duties when the pension was first laid down. That supports the contention he makes about the tie-up between Mr. Speaker and the Crown. Another thing is a little invidious. Inevitably, if we are to stick to tradition—and the whole plea has been that we should stick to traditional form—in these conditions we shall always be discussing a pension in relation to a particular person. I do not think there is any doubt about that.

Sir G. Nicholson: Unless we do it in advance.

Mr. Ross: We cannot do it in advance. It is inevitable that we shall have to do it in relation to a particular person and in relation to particular circumstances. We cannot say to the people of the country, "Forget all about the fact that it is Mr. Speaker Morrison, forget all about the fact that he is going to a governor-generalship which carries a salary of £10,000 a year." If the Home Secretary tells us that it is time we departed from what was laid down in 1817, he will have me with him. I do not agree with a lot that has been said about sterilising someone who has been Mr. Speaker from participation in industry. All we say in relation to abatement is that if he takes another post under the Crown he should lose his pension.
Under the suggested Amendment, my hon. Friend wished to apply that to a wider field, but again, the ex-Speaker would lose his pension. Surely he would appreciate that in that case the only question that arises is that of abatement and of conditions. No matter how we dealt with this matter in the future we should probably require to deal with the question of conditions and circumstances under which it is being dealt with today. I agree that I would like to see Speakers retiring at a younger age, but then we should have to consider the question of abatement.
Surely the circumstances in 1817, as envisaged by the Parliament of that time, were entirely different from those of


today. As a matter of fact, the position of a Member of Parliament in 1817 was very different from what it is today. It was said of Scottish Members after 1707 that though they heard many arguments which swayed them their vote was never swayed by argument but by hard cash. Indeed, the avenues to fortune open to Members of Parliament prior to 1817 were very considerable.

The Chairman: I am afraid that what the hon. Member is now saying is far from the Question before the Committee.

Mr. Ross: I put it to you, Sir Gordon, that we are being asked to pass the Clause in the traditional form as related to an Act of 1817. In 1817, the position of Mr. Speaker was entirely different from what it is today. Then he was taken from the back benches and placed in a position of independence of the Crown and of the Executive, and that at a time when the position of a private Member was very different from what it is today.
I think it was right that in those days the form of the Clause should be as it was. What I am arguing is that the conditions of the private Member who becomes the Speaker are so different today that I think we should invite the Government to contemplate making entirely different arrangements in future in relation to the Speaker and the provision of the pension. To deal with the Speaker's pension in this way is, I think, quite anachronistic in modern conditions.
I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite, although not with his arguments, that there is far more in making an ex-Speaker Governor-General of Australia than in his going into the City. If there is to be any penalty, I would prefer it to be for going into the City.
Before concluding, I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who managed to switch his arguments between the Amendment and the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." On the Amendment, my hon. Friend said that we must not pass the Amendment because of the link-up with retired pensioners of the public service—it might be brought into play against them. On the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," he told us that something had been going on since 1834 which, had

there been the same speedy effect, would have meant that private Members would since 1834 have had a considerably better time than they are having.
I congratulate my hon. Friend in respect of that, but I hope that the Leader of the House will give us some indication concerning how he hopes to deal with this matter in the future so as to save us from the embarrassment which has arisen in this case, which, I think, is out of all relation to present day circumstances.

5.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I am sure that Lord Dunrossil would be very touched by the reference of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and his tribute to Mrs. Speaker Morrison, for whom provision is made in the Clause. I am glad that that has been generally accepted by the Committee as a whole. The tributes paid to the late Speaker have been perfectly sincere. As I said in my speech on Second Reading, I do not think that those people outside who may be surprised at the criticisms which have taken place need accept them otherwise than as our undoubted right of free speech which we exercise at all times in the House of Commons and there is no personal issue in what has been said in respect of our revered friend the ex-Speaker whom we wish well in his onerous and important post overseas.
The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) was on the target, despite the observations of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), in referring to the different provisions of abatement in Section 20 of the Superannuation Act, a copy of which I obtained for greater accuracy before the debate started. There is no doubt that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock is also right, so we may end the debate on a very happy note, when he says that this Act is drafted entirely on the precedent of 1817 and that the figure of the Speaker's pension is also included in this Bill in relation to a figure thought of at that time.
I will deal first with the point raised by the hon. Member for Sowerby. There is no doubt that there is no great satisfaction in the operation of Section 20 of the Superannuation Act so we need not think that the necessary, right and


proper course to pursue is to make abatement provisions in pension payments. The fact is that, if we were to take the analogy of the civil servant, this Bill would be drafted in a different form. If we were to take the analogy of a colonial governor this Bill would be drafted in a different form. If we were to take the analogy of a Prime Minister, I understand that no pension is payable so long as he is receiving a salary out of moneys provided by Parliament or by the Duchy of Lancaster or paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
One very striking difference which we have not followed in this case is that members of the Armed Forces suffer no abatement of pension if appointed to a civilian Government post. I do not wish to go into comparisons, but it so happens that Lord Dunrossil's immediate predecessor was in that position, and so was Lord Alexander when Governor of Canada. There were no abatement provisions and, similarly, the judiciary have no provisions for abatement.
As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock quite rightly says, this Bill is drafted and based on the conception of 1817 as to amount and the terms of the Statute as it finally will be. It is, in fact, different from the Superannuation Act. It is less onerous, I think, than the provision affecting a civil servant, more onerous than that affecting an Army officer and more onerous than that affecting a member of the judiciary. I think that is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
In introducing the Bill the Government were actuated by precedent.

Mr. Fletcher: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the judiciary, but surely there is no precedent for any retired member of the judiciary except he be in employment under the Crown.

Mr. Butler: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Sowerby made a powerful and well-informed speech on the technicalities of abatement. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct in pursuing the matter to the ultimate destination of the judiciary, though confining himself to the arguments on abatement made by the hon. Member for Sowerby.
We have, in fact—this is the answer to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock—drafted the Bill on the old model. Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends were rather indignant when they found the provision for abatement, and some thought that it had been deliberately included to meet the contingency of United Kingdom Ministers, namely, the acceptance by an ex-Speaker of a post under the Crown overseas.
We have drafted the Bill, I must honestly say, upon the old principle and upon precedent and we have taken into consideration that while £4,000 may have been a lot in 1817, it still remains something in 1959. It formed a reasonable basis so that we did not then have to adopt the onerous provisions of Section 20 of the Superannuation Act which would have been more onerous than the Bill as at present drafted. We were not acting solely on precedent, but were doing something comparatively fair to the ex-Speaker in relation to the amount and the nature of the abatement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock asked whether we could bear in mind the possibility of reviewing these arrangements on the next occasion. As a member of Her Majesty's present Administration, it would not be for me to pledge my successors, because I do not know what Government will be in power—no doubt, it will still be our Government—at the conclusion of the term of office of our present distinguished Speaker.
If that be so, if our health and strength lasts, we may well take the advice which we have received on this occasion, If, on the other hand, there is a change of Administration, I hope that whatever our views we shall all pay some attention to today's debate. I have said quite frankly that the Bill is based on a very old precedent. It has raised considerable discussion and none of us is yet quite clear about what we ought to impose or ought not to impose on an ex-Speaker. It was said by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) that if we were to do something, we ought to do it ahead of time, and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock argued the same case. It is extraordinarily difficult for the Speaker of the day not to know his position.
It will be very difficult immediately to make any change, but I hope that the debate will result in our being able to look at the matter together. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was backed by the hon. Member for Leeds, West and others in the debate earlier this afternoon on the subject of the size of the pension. If we are to be strict, the subject of the size of the pension automatically arises. If so, we should consider the pension in relation to costs when we next discuss it. Thanks to the beneficent Administration which we are now enjoying, costs are fairly level, but they might in different circumstances rise appreciably. If that were so, the matter would deserve reconsideration in relation to general costs and the standard of living.
Mr. Baldwin's phrases, which were quoted by the hon. Member for Leeds, West were high-minded, but it must also be realised that the House is jealous that a man who has served the high dignity of Speaker should in no way debase that post by commitments into which he enters immediately afterwards. That is a broad generalisation, but I do not think that we should carry it so far as the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Huges). I think that we should leave the Bill as it stands and in passing wish well to our good friend, ex-Speaker Morrison.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — JUDICIAL PENSIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

5.24 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Last July my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, in reply to a question asked by Lord Silkin in a debate on the Pensions (Increase) Bill, pointed out that the increases which had been sanctioned in the salaries of members of the lower judiciary in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland had resulted in the amount of the maximum pension entitlement being automatically increased to a point at which they approximated to and, in a few cases exceeded, the pensions of the higher judiciary.
My noble Friend announced, with a confidence in the outcome of future events which has proved fully justified, that the Government had decided in a subsequent Session to put proposals before Parliament for the revision of the pension entitlement of members of the higher judiciary in the United Kingdom and, at the same time, to increase the pensions of those of the higher judiciary who had already retired.
The Bill contains those proposals, but before I explain the Bill, perhaps I should remind the House of one or two facts. Before 1799, Parliament made no provision for the payment of pensions to judges, though, on occasions, some were able to secure some provision for their future. For instance, Lord Northington, on resigning his post and becoming President of the Council in 1766, obtained an immediate pension of £2,000 a year and an agreement that he should receive a pension of £4,000 as soon as he retired from the Presidency. He also obtained a reversionary grant for two lives of the lucrative office of Clerk of the Hanaper in Chancery. I should perhaps add that that office no longer exists.
It was in 1799 that the first Act providing for pensions of the higher judiciary was passed. In 1825 three Acts were passed abolishing the sale of offices in the Court of King's Bench, the Court of


Common Pleas and the Court of Exchequer and making further provision for the salaries and pensions of the judges of those courts. The pension of the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench was fixed at £4,000, of the Master of the Rolls at £3,750 and of High Court judges at £3,500. One hundred years later, when the Supreme Court of Judicature Act was passed, those were the pensions to which they were entitled. The pensions were payable only if the judge had served for fifteen years in his office or was afflicted with some permanently disabling infirmity.
Unlike the English judges, the pensions of the Scottish judges were linked to their salaries. From 1808 until 1954 they were entitled to a pension not exceeding three-quarters of their salary, payable after fifteen years' service or on retirement through physical infirmity. The Northern Ireland judges until 1954 received two-thirds of their salaries as pension on retirement after fifteen years or on retirement as a result of infirmity.
In 1950, the pension of a High Court judge, the pension of the Lord Chief Justice and those of many other judges were those fixed in 1835. The Lord Chancellor's pension was that fixed in 1832. In 1950 we passed the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act under which, the House will recollect, provision was made for the widows and children of the higher judiciary. In return for the surrender of one-quarter of their pensions, judges became entitled to lump sums equal in amount to one year's pension and their widows to pensions of one-third of the amount of the judge's pension.
Judges serving at the date of the passing of that Act could elect to opt out of its provisions altogether, or out of the provisions as to pensions for widows and children. If they opted out, their pensions remained at £3,500, while, if they opted out of the provisions for widows and children only, their pensions were reduced to £2,625 and they had a lump sum equal to two years' pension.
In 1954 judicial salaries were increased by £3,000 generally, but those of the Lord Chancellor and of the Lord Chief Justice by £2,000. This Act provided that the increases in salaries were not to affect the

amount of the judges' pensions or derivative benefits.
So the position today is that the higher judiciary of England is entitled to pensions which have not been increased since 1825, and in the case of the Lord Chancellor since 1832, despite the fall in the value of money since then. In consequence of the increases made in May, 1959, the pension of a county court judge is very little less than that of a High Court judge in England, the pensions of the Recorders of Liverpool and Manchester are the same as that of a High Court judge. The pension of a Lord of Session in Scotland is less than that of the Sheriffs of Lanarkshire, the Lothians and Peebles and less than that of a Sheriff Substitute Class A. The pension of a High Court judge in Northern Ireland is less than that of the Recorders of Belfast and Londonderry and less than that of a county court judge in Northern Ireland.
I hope that I have said enough to convince the House that there is an overwhelming case now to increase the pensions of the higher judiciary, pensions which have not been increased for over 100 years.
I come now to the Bill. The Government have reached the conclusion that, in future, the pensions of the English judges should be linked to their salaries as, I have said, the pensions of Scottish and Northern Ireland judges are now linked. We propose that, in future, after fifteen years' service the pension will be one-half of the judge's last annual salary. It is now common for public service pension salaries to provide for a maximum pension of half the salaries. Official referees, county court judges, Metropolitan magistrates, Masters of the Supreme Court, civil servants, can all earn pensions equal to half their salaries.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Hear, hear.

The Attorney-General: I am glad to receive the hon. Gentleman's support.
The effect of our proposal in relation to judges of the High Court is that, unless they elected to opt out of the 1950 Act to which I have referred, their pensions will be increased from £2,625 to £4,000. That may seem to some a very large sum, but it should be remembered that it will suffer both


Income Tax and Surtax and that, even after the enactment of the Bill, the purchasing power of the pension will be less than when it was fixed in 1825.
The Bill also proposes a graduated instead of a fixed pension. Clause 1 (3) provides that if within five years of appointment one of those to whom the Bill applies retires through ill health or because he has reached the age of 75 or after he has reached the age of 70, he will receive a pension of one-quarter of his last annual salary, and for every year of service after five years an addition of one-fortieth of that salary.
A graduated pension scheme for the judges of the King's Bench Division was recommended as long ago as 1913 by a Royal Commission called the St. Aldwyn Commission. Its Report said:
We do not wish to see Judges appointed late in life; but it seems to us unfair to compel one who has been so appointed, to serve perhaps for some years beyond a reasonable age for retirement before he can obtain any pension; unfair to the Lord Chancellor to limit his choice of judges to men below a certain age; and unfair to the taxpayer, that in this Department of the State alone permanent infirmity should entitle a person, irrespective of his length of service, to the same pension as that at which he would have been entitled had he served the full term. We think that judges compelled to retire by ill-health or by the age limit should only receive pensions in proportion to the length of time they have served.
This proposal was endorsed by a Royal Commission which sat in 1936, which I may refer to as the Peel Commission. The Government think, largely for the reasons given by the St. Aldwyn Commission, that now when the pensions will be raised for the first time since 1825 it is right to make this change from a fixed to a graduated pension.
Clause 2 provides that those who are appointed to any of the offices to which the Bill applies must retire on their 75th birthday. The provision of a compulsory retiring age is new, but the St. Aldwyn and Peel Commissions were both in favour of it. The St. Aldwyn Commission thought that the age should be 72, with power to extend it in exceptional cases. The Peel Commission also thought that it should be 72, but without any discretionary power to extend. Its members thought that there should be a fixed limit. In paragraph 283 they used the words:

…since a conditional extension of office might conceivably be thought to endanger, in however small a degree, the independence of the judges.
There have been suggestions that there should be different retiring ages for judges of the High Court and for Lords Justices. Indeed, there have been suggestions that there should be no retiring age for Lords of Appeal. This question was recently considered by the Bar Council, and it is not uninteresting to note that the members of the Bar Council have expressed themselves in favour of a fixed retiring age of 75 for all members of the higher judiciary.
We have considered this question carefully and have reached the conclusion that there should be no difference between the retiring age of those to whom the Bill applies. We think that that age should be 75. We recognise that individual people vary so much that, whatever the statutory retiring age, it will not be right for everyone. We feel that in these days a retiring age of 75 is low enough to prevent judges continuing after their mental and physical faculties have deteriorated and high enough to ensure that the bench is not deprived of too much knowledge, experience and ripe judgment. Further, the provision of a graduated pension scheme will make it possible for those who feel their powers failing to retire after they have reached 70 and still receive a pension. There will be no need to carry on until they have served fifteen years. They can retire at any time after 70.
What I have said about the Bill so far applies to those who are appointed judges in the future. Clause 3 makes provision for those now holding judicial appointments. They are to be given the right to elect whether the provisions I have outlined shall apply to them. If they elect, they can retire on reaching 70 whether or not they have served fifteen years and they will receive the graduated pension. If they do not so elect they will receive on retirement after fifteen years' service, or in consequence of permanent disability, a pension of half their last annual salary, and they have three months after the passing of the Act to decide which course to take.
Clause 4 is a very complicated Clause. Its purpose is to ensure that a person who has held some other full time


judicial office shall not suffer by promotion if he has to retire after a short period in the higher office. For example, a county court judge in England can earn a pension of £2,200. If he is appointed to the High Court bench and retires with less than five years' service, his pension as a High Court judge would be £2,000. Clause 4 provides that a person in that position can elect to take a pension equal to that which he would have earned had he remained a county court judge, and the lump sum payable to him under the 1950 Act will be calculated on that basis.
Clause 5 restores the Lord Chancellor's pension to £5,000—the figure fixed in 1832—which, of course, is less than half his salary—

Mr. E. Fernyhough: The right hon. and learned Gentleman used the word "restores". Can he say when the Lord Chancellor's pension was reduced?

The Attorney-General: I think I said that under the 1950 legislation, unless people opted out of it, the pensions were all reduced by a quarter in order to make provision for the lump sum payment, and for widows' and children's benefits. By this Clause, the Lord Chancellor's pension will go back to what it was in 1832, and will be less than one-half—this is the difference between his pension and that of the other judges—of his salary.
Clause 6 provides against a person claiming two pensions. Clause 7 deals with the position of judges who have already retired but who would come within the scope of this Bill by virtue of their appointments. If they have already retired, their pensions will be increased by 12 per cent., and their widows, if the judges had already retired, will receive a pension of one-third of the judges' pension disregarding the increases made by this Bill.
That is rather complicated, and it is really dealt with by Clause 7 (2). The intention is to prevent their getting two increases. Some widows of judges are now entitled under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959, to an increase of 12 per cent., and under that Act it is pro-

posed to make regulations to secure that all widows' pensions not related to judges' pensions increased by this Bill are increased by 12 per cent.
The result of all this will be that the pensions of judges who retired before the introduction of the Bill, and the pensions of the widows of those judges who died, or retired, before that date will be increased by 12 per cent., and every judge who retires after this Bill has been introduced will have a pension at the new rate and his widow's pension will be calculated on that rate.
I do not think that I need say very much more about this Bill, but perhaps I should just refer to Clause 8 (2) which may cause some little difficulty. That provision deals with the special case of the judge who opted out of the 1950 Act, and so did not have his pension reduced. The effect of this subsection is to give him the same proportional increase in pension as is being given to those who did not opt in 1950 and those who were appointed since 1950. There is a mathematical calculation in that subsection, and that is the result of working it out.
I have explained this Bill as shortly as I can, and, I hope, to the satisfaction of the House. It is a Bill that is badly needed, and, for the reasons I have already given, I submit that there is a strong case for making the increases it proposes, and I commend it to the House.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: It seems to me that the question we have to consider today is not whether these pensions are in themselves attractive or unattractive, or even whether, taken in the abstract, they would be fair. Judges' salaries are at present fixed by a recent Act at figures of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given some instances. As I see it, the question is whether these pensions bear a fair proportion to those salaries. I have no doubt, both by comparison with the cases of other judicial dignitaries and officers mentioned by the Attorney-General and also by comparison outside the legal profession altogether, that, as a matter of proportion, the present judges' pensions are too small in relation to their salaries.
Attached to that, of course, there is the question of qualification and retirement, about which I should like to say a word or two later. First, I want to say something in support of what I was suggesting just now. It is certainly not true to say of the judges, in relation to their salaries or their pensions, that they have never had it so good. They had it very much better at the end of the Napoleonic Wars.
The learned Attorney-General did not tell us that the £5,500 that a High Court judge got then was free of all tax—though there was not very much tax about until that lusty child, the Income Tax, appeared in the middle of the Judges Pensions Acts of that time. Therefore, part, if not all of the pension was then free of all tax, too. The judges really had a very good time of it, and it no doubt reflects the lucrative character of the somewhat curious arrangements, to our modern eyes, by which their previous salaries had been supplemented.
That did not last for long, and it is generally true to say that the figures of £5,000 for a High Court judge, with a pension of £3,500, did last for so long that they became established in the minds of many of the older among us as the set figures. In relation to £5,000, £3,500 is, of course, considerably more than half. Where does the half come from?
The half-salary figure comes, I think, partly from existing legislation in relation to other superannuation, where I would add one instance to those given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—he may, indeed, have mentioned it. One-half is the standard maximum for a senior civil servant after forty years' service. A senior civil servant normally retires at 60 and if, as many civil servants do, he does not join the Civil Service until he is 23 or 24 years of age, he does not, as an average senior civil servant, serve the full 40 years.
I have been looking at what happens to judges in regard to age and service. Though not, of course, dealing with any individuals, I have taken as instances the last eleven appointments of King's Bench judgeships; that is to say, all appointments in and since 1951. The average age on appointment was 55, and the average length of time that those judges had served at the Bar before they were

appointed to the Bench was about 31 years. That, I think, is the service which one really has to consider when looking at the matter of judicial pensions.
If we are to take the fifteen years which has been traditional and remains the period for maximum pension under the Bill, and if we consider 55 or thereabouts as the average age at appointment, then, in the majority of cases, a judge in order to qualify under the Bill by retiring at or after the age of 70 will have earned the full pension. The important point in the Bill, therefore, from the standpoint of money, is the amount of the full pension, the half proportion which it bears to the salary.
There is another way in which the proportion of half salary or earnings has appeared recently. My own party recently made some proposals about superannuation. Without going into those in detail or into questions concerning the length of time which might be required to put them into effect, the ultimate aim there, which we broadly regarded as just, was half earnings. I say no more than that.

Mr. E. Shinwell: That is a contributory pension scheme.

Mr. Mitchison: My right hon. Friend points out that that is a contributory scheme. What I am on at the moment is that the amount which was felt to be right and proper, however arrived at, in relation to a man's earnings, whether he were a judge or anyone else, was the half. This was what was thought proper and sufficient provision on retirement, however arrived at, whether with or without contributions. We took that figure because we regarded it as being about the proportion obtainable under a good private pension scheme nowadays, whether contributory or non-contributory. In my view, when we are considering the right proportion, we should have regard to that conclusion. For all those reasons, I should have thought that the right proportion was the half.
It is perfectly true, of course, not only that a judge's pension is non-contributory but also that, under the 1950 Act, the judges obtained, in return for a concession of a quarter of their pensions, two advantages. One was a lump sum and the other was a widow's and children's allowance, if I may call it that.


Those two advantages, again, correspond to provisions for the retirement of senior civil servants. A senior civil servant in the same way receives what is called an additional allowance, and though the comparison is not exact it is roughly similar to what a judge had under the 1950 Act in return for his concession of that other amount. As regards the widow's and children's provision, there is, again, something similar for retiring civil servants, with the difference which my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) will note, that it is in that case contributory, though I must say that the contributions seem to me to be very small indeed, spread, as they are, over the whole of the civil servant's career.
The essential difference when one is considering questions of contribution or non-contribution seems to be this. One must, I suggest, in the case of the judge consider not merely the actual period during which he serves as a judge but the 30 or 31 years, or thereabouts, during which he has qualified himself for appointment as a judge by working in the legal profession. One may take a young man and set him in a public office, appointing him, as I believe he is appointed, as an assistant principal, give him something to do and allow him to establish himself in his work gradually. Indeed, in some foreign countries there is a rather similar arrangement for the judiciary; they begin in small offices and work their way up. In this country we have never had that system. We are not called upon to alter the whole system under this Bill. The system being what it is, it seems to me only right to take into account those other years. In the circumstances, of course, the matter of contributions begins to look a little different, for many are called to the Bar but few are chosen to the Bench. It is impracticable to identify the future judge at the moment when he begins his career.
I find a rather close analogy—as close, indeed, as one could expect in different circumstances—between what is being done for the judge now and what is provided for senior civil servants and, indeed, for the other judicial officers to whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. I think that that is right. Again, judging the proportion, I think that that is right.
I turn now to the qualifying period. Obviously, in the nature of the case, if the average age of appointment is 55, it has to be a short one. I think it right and proper that judges should receive a proportion of the pension after five years' service on the Bench. Similarly, of course, a senior civil servant has a proportion of his final pension if he retires at an early age; bust, naturally, since there is a difference between the two careers, he would have his quarter far earlier than the judge, and, in fact, the senior civil servant would have his quarter after twenty years of service, shall we say, at the age of 43 or 44 or something like that. But that merely reflects the difference between the two types of career.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: If my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to say so, it will not be a quarter of the judge's salary if he retires at that early age.

Mr. Mitchison: I thought I said a quarter of his retiring pension. It is on the matter of proportions that I am speaking now, since it does not seem to me that the Bill raises any question whatever about the amount of judges' salaries. The question before us is merely one of the relationship of the proposed pensions to the salaries which are already there. In order to make that clear, I was taking as an analogy a similar relationship which exists between the pensions of senior civil servants and the salaries of senior civil servants, which latter are no more in question in our discussion today than, in my view, are the salaries of judges.
I turn now to the provisions for retirement. I feel sure that it is right that, in accordance with the recommendations of the two Royal Commissions and a certain amount of practical knowledge which anyone who has had any connection with the legal profession cannot but have acquired, there should be some obligatory retiring age. I doubt that it will come into operation very often. Similarly, I think it right that there should be an age at which entitlement to pension begins. It is 70 in the Bill. In the majority of cases, as I have said, I think that a judge who reaches the age of 70 will have qualified for the full pension.
Accordingly, we shall get out of a difficulty which must have presented itself to many distinguished judges, who, from some points of view, not necessarily because of their own competence but perhaps because of their own inclinations, would have wished to retire at an advanced age although short of their full fifteen years' service but felt obliged to hold on in order to get their pension. We know very well that that happens in other walks of life, but it cannot be a good thing or a thing to be encouraged. I think that we would all agree that it is to be discouraged particularly among the judiciary. On that account, therefore, and in order to make the judges perhaps a little better off but comparable with more humble mortals in other respects, it is a good thing that the provision should be there.
I welcome the Bill. I see no objection to it on any ground of principle. There is a rather wide Money Resolution which we shall have to consider later. No doubt, if there are any small points to be raised, they can be dealt with then. I do not wish to say anything about the provisions for opting out, for reconciling the position of judges who retired earlier and matters of that kind, because they seem to me, at any rate, to be sensible and fair, and we must thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his clear explanation of them.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rawlinson: I support the Bill. I think that its provisions with regard to the age limit for judges and the increase in pensions will be welcomed by the whole profession. I have always thought it strange that there should he no age limit for the retirement of judges, when there is one in practically every other activity. It has always seemed to me odd that there was not some regulation under which judges at a certain age should retire from the bench. I know that it is true that it is a profession in which experience begets wisdom, but I think it right that an age limit should be imposed. A considerable strain is imposed on judges presiding at trials for many hours on end. For a person of very advanced age, however brilliant of mind and however experienced and knowledgeable that person may be, great strain is imposed which is understandable at the end of a long day but which shows, perhaps,

that that person is not fit enough physically to undergo the strain. I therefore think that the Clause dealing with retirement is generally wise, although I know that there have been, and are, greate exceptions who still sit on the Bench.
I think that a judge has a unique position in society. Society places him in a position of tremendous trust. I should imagine that it is a lonely and isolated office. I think that it has always been held to be the duty of society that if a man is made a judge of his fellow countrymen he should not only have the support of the people who made him a judge but should also have around him the dignity of the law. That is why I presume our judges still sit on the Bench in their ancient robes and wear their wigs, and why advocates also appear before them robed and wigged. When a judge puts on his robe, like Melchizedek, he does so without pedigree. I presume that that tradition is maintained in our system of law to show that a judge is apart and separate from everybody else. Similarly, we have here in the House of Commons Mr. Speaker in his robes and we have a Black Rod because we wish and think it right to maintain the dignity of our proceedings.
So we must also ensure, high as the figure may sound, that our judges are properly remunerated. Presumably, the sum of £5,000 was awarded in the early 19th century in order to place judges beyond the reach of corruption. As has been said, at that time that was a very high and fine remuneration. That system seems to have worked with such success that their salaries seem to have become forgotten and left alone. Not only must we remove the possibility of corruption by the salary, but we must also reflect in it the high degree of honour which we should pay to judges.
I am very glad to see the introduction of this timely increase in pensions. I was interested to hear the researches of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) into the average age of the eleven appointments to the Queen's Bench Division since 1951. The Treasury, I suppose, demanded that persons be appointed who would be likely to last fifteen years. So, to earn the pension, there had to be appointed a certain age group. I think that this Bill gives


greater opportunity for the appointment of older men who may not serve for fifteen years but who will bring great wisdom and merit to the bench and who previously seemed to be excluded because they were over the age of 55.
A judge, as has been said, should not be a
silly old man who does silly old trade.
But I agree with Plato who said:
A judge should not be young; he should have learned to know evil, not from his own soul, but from late and long observation of the nature of evil in others: knowledge should be his guide, not personal experience.
I am, then, in favour of some appointments which I think will now be possible under this Bill because of the pension provisions.

Mr. Mitchison: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman think that Plato is a dangerous author to quote? He would have no lawyers in the Republic.

Mr. Rawlinson: As I understand it, Plato would have only old judges.
I should now like to turn to the question of the increase of £1,000 in the pension of the Lord Chancellor. While I thoroughly approve of the increase, I think that we should bear in mind that the appointment of the Lord Chancellor is a political appointment. When we consider the pension which is paid to Prime Ministers, it seems that we have our values in incorrect perspective. I have always felt that men who are leaders of the country and hold important positions should be paid and looked after by the nation after the years of service which they have given to it. While I support the Lord Chancellor's pension of £5,000 per annum, I should certainly like to point out that there ought to be increased pensions that should and could be paid to public servants of great distinction.
Finally, I am unashamedly proud of the English judicial system. I know that, with any system, criticism can be made, but when one travels abroad to countries where judges are elected and where they get their appointments and maintain them because of political influence and pressure, I think that we can look with pride to our own system. I believe that

we should maintain the pageantry of our judicial system in the same way as we maintain the pageantry of this House.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the hon. and learned Member suggest that no political bias among the judiciary is ever expressed?

Mr. Rawlinson: I do not know the right hon. Gentleman's experience of the judiciary.

Mr. Ellis Smith: He has had some.

Mr. Rawlinson: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has had some experience at the receiving end. I suppose that that is liable to happen to any of us at any time, but I think that he would be misjudging generally the views and opinions of the people of this country if he thought that there was serious criticism of the administration of judges or of their partiality. One has only to visit the courts, either criminal or civil, to be quite satisfied that those who preside are men who to the best of their ability and with great integrity carry out the difficult task of administering justice. The status of the bench is as high in reputation and repute today as it ever has been. I am glad to welcome the Bill, because I believe that in its way it will help to maintain this high standard.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I was interested to hear the hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) say that pensions should be granted to those who have served the State for a period of five years. I sometimes wish that that rule applied to the Members of this House as it will now apply to the judicature. We know that through force of circumstances many Members of the House give service for a much longer period, lose their seats in Parliament and are turned out without any pension at all. I hope that if this rule is to be applied to the judicial bench, some day this House might look after its Members, who are responsible for the legislation concerning judges.
I want to say a word about the position affecting Scotland. I must express just a little surprise that neither the Lord Advocate nor the Solicitor-General for Scotland find it possible to be present


this afternoon. It is true that the Secretary of State for Scotland is here, and I wonder whether he might care to reply to a question or two which I wish to put. I shall not argue either for or against the Bill. It provides us, however, with an opportunity of raising the case of a section of those who serve in Scotland.
I wish to refer to the position of sheriffs substitute under the Bill. In opening his case today, the Attorney-General pointed out the position of county court judges under the Bill and said that some of them had pensions greater than those of some members of the judicial bench. Indeed, in substantiation of the Bill—

The Attorney-General: May I correct the hon. Member? I pointed out that one provision in the Bill was to ensure that people who were promoted from the county court bench—I took that as an example, but it would apply anywhere—to the High Court, to a superior appointment, did not lose financially if they had to retire at an early date in consequence. I gave the illustration of a county court judge in England, who can now earn a pension larger thin a High Court judge will get during the first five years, and I said that a right of election was given which applies to all judicial appointments coming within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Hoy: I admit that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will, however, remember that he instanced the case of the sheriffs principal for Lanark and Lothian and Peebles and one other and said that their pensions as a result of recent legislation were in excess of what could be earned by a judge of the Court of Session in Scotland. That was the Scottish background on which the Attorney-General was basing his case for the Bill.
I do not dispute that for one moment. What I say, however, is that it does not apply to the sheriffs substitute in Scotland. The sheriffs substitute have always been regarded as the counterparts of county court judges, but in law the sheriffs substitute in Scotland have a much greater judicial power than have the county court judges in England and Wales. They have a tremendous amount of work which does not fall on their

counterparts in England. Despite that, the sheriffs substitute in Scotland are in a much inferior position concerning pension.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon) indicated dissent.

Mr. Hoy: I want to put the case fairly despite the shake of the head by the Solicitor-General.
The sheriff substitute in Scotland is in an inferior position in comparison with a county court judge in England. For instance, by Section 21 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907, a pension may be granted to a sheriff substitute or to a sheriff on the scale of not less than one-third for 10 years of service, two-thirds for 15 years of service or three-quarters for 20 years of service. This is something which does not stand comparison with the position of county court judges in England. Indeed, in today's Bill, five years' service will be the determining factor. When we make this change, with which I do not disagree, it will not apply to the sheriffs substitute in Scotland. I do not think anybody would deny that.

The Attorney-General: The change proposed by the Bill does not alter the pension of county court judges. The only provision which applies to county court judges or sheriffs substitute is Clause 4, which gives them the pension if they are promoted to higher judicial office. Otherwise, sheriffs substitute, like county court judges, are outside the Bill.

Mr. Hoy: That may be so. All I am pointing out is that even if the Bill is passed, the position of the sheriffs substitute in Scotland will still compare most unfavourably with county court judges in England. The sheriffs substitute feel this difference keenly. Indeed, on the whole question of salaries they feel that they are treated in a way which is inferior to the treatment of their counterparts in England and Wales.

Mr. Ellis Smith: There are 49 of them and they receive between them £135,000 a year.

Mr. Hoy: I do not suggest that they are not getting enough. All I am saying to the Attorney-General and to the House is that the sheriffs substitute in


Scotland get less, whereas their powers on the bench are much greater than those of the county court judges in England.

Mr. E. G. Willis: The Scottish judges get less too, and their pensions also are accordingly less.

Mr. Hoy: Yes, indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend that in that respect the Scottish judges are in an inferior position to their counterparts in England and Wales. That is why I have raised the matter this afternoon. I could instance many cases, both in industry and elsewhere, where this position arises. On the Bill before us, which affects judges, I am raising the position of the Scottish sheriffs substitute in comparison with their counterparts in England.
Another anomaly is that when the English county court judge retires his pension is based on his salary during his last year of office. This does not apply to the sheriffs substitute in Scotland. The Scottish judicial bench feels that the sheriffs substitute have been ignored both in today's Bill and in previous Measures.
This is not a matter which concerns merely the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General. It is peculiar to Scotland. The sheriffs substitute have had a long argument about their status for many years. It is the duty not of the English Law Officers but of the Scottish Office to reply to this point, and it is the Scottish Office to which I am directing my argument. If we cannot have the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General for Scotland with us, we are at least entitled to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to make his opinion clear about how the judicial bench in Scotland will be treated by this Bill.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. John Hobson: I do not dare to follow the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) into Scottish affairs. I will confine myself to the subject of the Bill, which I understand is the pension of the higher judiciary, excluding both county court judges and sheriffs substitute, and the present salaries of the higher judiciary both in England and Scotland.
I want shortly to give the reasons why I welcome the Bill. It is of vital interest to the State that we should have the highest quality of personnel holding the

higher judicial offices of the State. One reason why our legal system and the common law have been admired throughout the world is that for centuries the higher judiciary have displayed qualities of intelligence, integrity and independence which are quite outstanding.
The only criticism that can be raised against our judicial system at the moment is that it has been said that the efficiency of our criminal law is now impaired only by the difficulty of finding twelve ordinary men, who can neither read nor understand anything, in order to compose the jury, but there is never any criticism of the way the higher judicial officers discharge their duties. One of the difficulties is that should they not be properly provided with pensions on retirement it is liable in the long term, twenty or thirty years from now, to lead to a decline in the quality of persons who may come forward as being available for appointment to such offices.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) pointed out that we recruit for the High Court in England from members of the Bar. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) said, we do not have elected judges nor, thank heaven, a Ministry of Justice. Some Continental countries train their judges from the beginning as civil servants. We have always followed the system under which those who may come to preside over trials have taken part in the arena. They know the difficulties of conducting litigation within the arena and, like persons who have played the game, should make the best referees. I am sure that we all want to see perpetuated a system whereby we should continue to recruit High Court judges from members of the Bar and not from a Ministry of Justice where they start as civil servants when young and continue to be promoted throughout their careers.
If this is so, the quality of those who are to occupy seats on the High Court bench must depend to a certain extent on the rewards that await them at the end. At the moment there is grave anxiety that the attractions of industry and of walks of life other than the law are taking away from the Bar, at any rate in England, very many of the able brains who might previously have been


called to the Bar. It does not matter a bit as far as the Bar is concerned. It can look after itself, but what is important is that twenty or thirty years from now, when it is too late to do anything, we might find ourselves in a position in which there are not those qualified people who occupy seats on the High Court bench such as we have always been able to recruit from the Bar up to now. It is for that reason alone that I welcome the provisions in the Bill for increased pensions. The right hon. and learned Member for Kettering—

Mr. Mitchison: I am not a Privy Councillor.

Mr. Hobson: I am sorry. I beg the hon. and learned Member's pardon. The hon. and learned Member has the support not of Plato but of Aristotle for his view that retirement provisions are good and are to be welcomed, because Aristotle said:
That judges of important causes should hold office for life is not a good thing, for the mind grows old as well as the body.
It is true and without doubt that as age advances some judges, though there are very notable exceptions, obviously show tit.; wear and tear of the office that they bear, on the onset of extreme old age.
I have worked out that there are 86 people who hold offices which are scheduled in the Bill and, of those, the live who have been longest on the High Court Bench have had an average occupation of the bench of twenty-five years each, a very long and substantial time for any person to discharge high judicial office. The five holders of these offices who are senior in age—and they are not the same five as are senior in appointment to the bench—have an average age of 81, a very high age for senior members of the bench. This shows that the Bill is overdue. It may well be that many of the holders of these offices might well have considered retiring earlier had there been a pension similar to what is now proposed.
I ask the Government to consider the question of opting. As I understand, under Clause 3 the present holders of high judicial office can opt to take the new rates under Clauses 1 and 2. They are to be allowed to take those benefits but are not, apparently, to be subject

to the retirement provisions if they opt for the benefit. They will be allowed to retire at 70 if they desire to do so, but they will not have to remain, in default of opting, on their present scales because Clause 3 (1) provides that in default of opting they shall retain 50 per cent. of salary on retirement.
It seems to me, therefore, that a judge who does not opt does not place himself under an obligation to retire at 75 and yet will still get 50 per cent. of his salary on retirement. I should have thought that a judge, in default of electing to take the new benefits and obligation to retire, ought to remain on his present pension scales and not have his retirement pension raised to half his annual salary.

The Attorney-General: I am afraid that my hon. and learned Friend has misread Clause 3 (1). What he says ought to be done is provided for.

Mr. Hobson: I am glad that point is cleared up, but the subsection says:
…in default of such an election the annual amount of the pension which may be granted to him under the relevant pension enactment on his retirement shall in any case be one half of his last annual salary.

The Attorney-General: My hon. and learned Friend puts the stress on "in any case" but he must have regard to the words:
under the relevant pension enactment".

Mr. Hobson: To the English High Court judge the relevant enactment is the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, which, by amendment in this Bill, will enable to be paid to him a pension the amount of which is unspecified in the Bill. Therefore, as I understand it, with the amendment in this Bill the judge who does not opt will nevertheless have one-half of his annual salary. However, this is a Committee point. It is pure drafting, but it is a point which I would ask the Government to consider and certainly would have thought ought to have been made clear in the Bill so that inefficient lawyers like myself who cannot understand the Clause can see plainly that the position will be that the judge who opts to get the benefit will have the duty to retire and that the judge who opts to stay on will not receive the increased benefit and will have to remain on the present pension rate.
Subject only to that small point, I welcome the Bill, the total estimated cost of which is only £55,000 a year. I welcome the Bill because it will secure that men of the right quality will come forward in the future to discharge one of the most important offices in the State. When we remember that the whole of our judicial system in its higher ranks between England, Scotland and Northern Ireland depends on the shoulders of only eighty-six men, I am sure we should be grateful for the way in which they have maintained the high standard of British justice.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day six months."
Mr. Speaker, we are considering the Second Reading of the Judicial Pensions Bill. We could have confined ourselves to saying what should be in the Bill and we could also have made a critical analysis of it because of the great cost involved. However, other issues arise and we would have been wrong to be satisfied by confining ourselves to that. Therefore, since there is so much at stake, I have moved the Amendment.
Let me make it crystal clear that in any observations which I and my hon. Friends make we are casting no reflections upon the British judiciary. Apart from certain qualifications I must make, and apart from 1920, 1921 and 1926—and, now I see my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) sitting here, apart from George Square in 1919—we have the greatest possible respect for it. In a time of relative normality the British judiciary is one of the best in the world, if not the best.
This Amendment has been placed on the Order Paper by a certain small minority it is true, but they are hon. Members who have served this House well, and I wish to emphasise that the thought of our own pensions did not enter our minds. My hon. Friends and I have never begged for a penny. We have never been on our hands and knees. We have never been parties to sycophancy. We have worked for our living. We have come through a hard school. We have never used our public influence for personal advantage and we

do not intend to do that in any way this evening.
I once sat on the Front Bench because I was voted there and not through individual selection. That has never been my lot in life. Sitting there, because on two occasions my party was not prepared to differ with the Coalition Government about the position of the old-age pensioners, I voted against my party because there was so much at stake. That is the explanation of our position tonight, Mr. Speaker. I will leave it to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and several other of my hon. Friends, to relate the story of the Beveridge Report and all that went on behind the scenes, and the part we played.
In moving this Amendment to postpone the Second Reading of the Bill, our main purpose, therefore, is to provide a wider opportunity for discussion, based upon our acceptance of and respect for the Standing Orders, and to remind the House that we are living in a democratic State. We shall contrast the difference in treatment of the relatively well-placed people in the professions, of military officers, including field marshals, of those in most of the non-productive services—we shall compare their treatment with that of those engaged in the export and essential productive industries of our country. During the last twenty years we have seen one Bill after another brought in, all like this one, all improving the position of relatively well-placed people whilst our own people are in the position which everybody at a General Election admits. We are asking that what is said at a General Election should be reflected in this House, and by doing so we are worthy to belong to those who put us here.
If hon. Members on both sides of the House accept my argument as reasonable, they will agree that the time has come to take a stand upon this matter. We are doing that early in this new Parliament. I learned many years ago that there were always many people in all walks of life ready to stand up and speak for the relatively well-paid people, but very few are prepared to take a stand for those not well placed. I have seen how people with legal training and those trained as accountants handle things, such as negotiating their Income


Tax returns, while our people are dealt with by Pay-As-Your-Earn and every penny is taken into account. When reasoning in this way I am bound to mention that point.
There is another point which gave rise to the Amendment. The publication of the Bill coincided with the announcement of Mr. Speaker Morrison's appointment as Governor-General of Australia. I associate myself 100 per cent. with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). There is no reflection on Mr. Speaker Morrison when I say that the announcement coincided with the publication of this Bill. Everywhere I went in the Lobbies and tea rooms—I do not go into the "coalition" smoke room—Members were saying that the time had arrived when a stand should be taken. Therefore my hon. Friends said, "Well, we will not talk, we will do something". That is the reason why I am pleased to be: associated with my hon. Friends in this Amendment.
When Is began to think about this, I remembered the giant who used to sit on the benches opposite and who stood on his own for many years before the war. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) was Prime Minister he moved the Second Reading of the Judges' Remuneration Bill on 23rd March, 1954, and the Attorney-General did not mention this. The Prime Minister of the day, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford, said:
We are giving the judges £3,000 a year and we are taking back from them £2,266 in tax a year at the same time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 1058.]
That meant that the judges were still getting an increase in salary of £734 a year, which is not a bad increase. And it was only five years ago. That has not been mentioned by the other speakers who have supported this Bill. Incidentally, I was wondering which side was supporting the most—but we will not inquire into that too far. Not a word was said about that Measure of five years ago.
What are the facts? The more I study the Bill the more indignant I become at the differentiation made between the people to whom I belong and represent and the other people to whom I have re-

ferred who are relatively well off. This Bill is another step in the same direction of differentiation.
It says that it is a Bill to
Amend the law with respect to the pensions and other benefits attaching to certain high judicial offices, to regulate the age of retirement from such offices and"—
let me underline this with all the emphasis possible—
to increase certain pensions and other benefits granted to or in respect of persons who have held such offices.
If I understand that correctly it means that this is retrospective legislation. Am I correct? This is equivalent to retrospective legislation. Is that correct?

The Attorney-General: I did not follow the hon. Gentleman. If he would not mind putting the question again, I will certainly seek to answer it.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman very much. I will repeat it. The Long Title, the effect of which is carried out in the Clauses, states that the Bill is to increase certain pensions and other benefits
granted to or in respect of persons who have held such offices.
That means retrospective legislation?

The Attorney-General: So far as those judges who have retired already are concerned, it is a pensions increase Bill, like we have had before. There is no retrospective element in this. So far as those who have retired already are concerned, this is just increasing their pensions. With regard to those who retire after the date of the introduction of the Bill, by Clause 7 (3), they will be entitled to the benefit of this Bill.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I know I am dealing with the highest placed legal authority in the country. So in plain language that means the retrospective operation of this Bill—in payments.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: To those who retire after the introduction of the Bill.

Mr. Shinwell: Somebody benefits. What does it matter?

Mr. Ellis Smith: If I am wrong, I shall be corrected. If I am correct in my understanding of the Bill, it means that that retrospection which cannot, they


say, be applied for the benefit of, for instance, those who suffer because of pneumoconiosis, and those who are on workmen's compensation, can be applied to judges or to relatively highly-placed people. When we are dealing with industrial injuries, that kind of help cannot be applied.
Clause 1 says that after fifteen years' service the maximum pension shall be one-half of the annual salary. Does that mean that Lords of Appeal will receive a pension of £4,500 a year? Does it mean that the Lord Chief Justice will receive a pension of £5,000 a year? When the Solicitor-General replies to the debate, will he say what are the contributions that are being paid towards these pensions? Will he say what the salaries are?
I have here the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom in which the Solicitor-General will be very interested because he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury prior to his recent new appointment. Will he just glance at this document? He will know it right away. My hon. Friends should go to the Vote Office to get this very interesting document. It is very interesting to see what is hidden in the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom.
Now I am on very strong ground, because for years and years I have pleaded with this House that it should examine in detail the Consolidated Fund Bills which come before us year by year. Instead of that we have year by year gone on to something else. Year after year, especially during the last fifteen years, millions of pounds have been voted away without any examination at all. We see what this means when we look at the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom. It is interesting to read pages 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the document where we come to the salaries of the judges. On page 39 there is a list of the whole of them. We read in the Official Report for last Thursday that some people receive other appointments, and that twenty-one judges have been appointed to other positions of inquiry since 1955.
What we are saying is that the time has arrived when this differentiation in

treatment should be looked at, and the treatment of people on Industrial Injuries insurance, for instance, should be contrasted with the treatment of those in relatively higher positions. That is why we take the attitude we do tonight towards this Bill.
There are millions of pounds of payments of all kinds hidden away in the Consolidated Fund Bills, and they can be seen by making an analysis of the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom, which should be read by all hon. Members if we are going to do justice to those whose support we have recently received at the General Election, and for whom my hon. Friends and I are speaking tonight. Year after year, I emphasise, we have passed Consolidated Fund Bills without examination of them. We have done it since 1940. It was then it started. I remember the days when such a thing could not have taken place, when those Bills were subjected to minute examination by the House. But we have got away from that and gone to voting millions just like that. Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair for a short time, and sits on the Treasury Bench while we go into Committee and the Chairman of Ways and Means takes the Chair, and in almost no time millions of pounds are voted, Mr. Speaker resumes the Chair, and we go on to deal with some issue which has nothing to do with finances at all. The result has been that since 1940 millions of pounds have been voted away without any examination at all.
The people pay contributions for their pensions. They are subject to an actuarial report, which I have here, if anyone challenges me. The people pay a greater amount in contributions than they receive in benefits. If anyone doubts that let him check the fact for himself. Highly skilled engineers, draughtsmen and patternmakers, for whom I am speaking, go on National Assistance if they have exhausted their benefits through sickness. Compare the treatment which they and their families receive with that of the people we are legislating for tonight.
In view of the fact that some hon. Member on the other side of the House may charge me, let me plead guilty and say that during the years Consolidated Fund Bill after Consolidated Fund Bill has been passed without any examination


at all it has been done under all Governments. I have seen this done by all Governments, and in the past fourteen years, in particular, it has been overdone. We contrast the pension of thousands of pounds a year with the meagre old-age pension, the low sickness and unemployment benefits, the benefits paid to disabled workers, and the scandalously low National Assistance scales. We object to the Bill because of the differentiation in the treatment of our people.
No one believes more than I do in rewarding merit and service, but there are millions of other people who are serving this country well, and have done so in the past. In addition—and if anyone doubts what I am about to say the International Labour Office Reports will prove that I am right—the percentage of our national income spent on pensions, sickness and unemployment benefits is falling below that of continental countries. The proportion of the national income paid out is not what it was a few years ago. Even in 1946, when we were responsible for fixing the standards of payment, it was not as high as it should have been. All that we have done since then is to maintain what was a low standard.
In reply to a question which I asked, the then Financial Secretary, who is now the Solicitor-General, said that in 1946 the percentage of the national income spent on social services was 3·2 per cent. In 1955 it was 2·8 per cent. The industrial workers have been responsible for an enormous increase in output but in times of sickness, unemployment or industrial disability, or on reaching the age of 65, they have not maintained the relative position which they won pre-war, and which we secured for them in 1946.
For those reasons, the time has arrived when we should do our duty on every occasion when a Bill of this character is brought before the House. There are those of us who do not want to be any different and prefer to remember the roots from which we draw our strength. It is our duty to speak out in the way that my hon. Friends intend to do this evening.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Norman Pentland: I beg to second the Amendment.
In doing so, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent,

South (Mr. Ellis Smith) on so ably moving the Amendment. He did it with the sincerity that we always associate with him in discussing matters of this kind. My hon. Friend has covered most of the aspects with which we wish to deal, and, therefore, I will say only a few words in support of what he has so emphatically said this evening.
It is not that we have any personal hostility or animosity towards the people who will benefit by the proposals outlined in the Bill. As my hon. Friend said, many of these people have worked hard in their own spheres all their lives and have given great service to the community and the country. I hope that it will be understood that the reason for the Amendment is to draw the attention of the House to those people whom we think deserve consideration.
It is true, as was said earlier, that compared with the total national income the pensions outlined in the Bill do not amount to very much, but they amplify a wrong set of values. As my hon. Friend said, we are more and more condoning this sort of thing. It is time that there was a levelling up. When we talk about the wrong values being amplified it would be wrong of me, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you would call me to order, if I happened to mention the "golden handshakes" from another source, so I will leave that. I would, however, like to draw the attention of the Government to the obligations that they have to that section of the community which has the greatest need.
The Government and the nation are not entitled to boast about their achievements and prosperity, and shout to the high heavens that we have never had it so good while, at the same time, continuing to ignore the plight of the poorer sections of the community. We should remember that in our modern industrial society not only is enormous wealth created for certain people but that certain obligations and responsibilities follow. We should remember that we have obligations and responsibilities to the people whom my hon. Friend mentioned, the old-age pensioners, the sick, the disabled and the widows. No Government should be allowed to run away from those responsibilities. These people are as much a product of our society as the wealth that is created.
In the last election the party opposite were successful in creating a myth in the public mind about everyone in this country living prosperously, that there was nothing to worry about and that there was nothing for anyone to complain about. The party opposite must have been successful in creating that myth because they won the election. I am bold enough to say that that is why the party opposite are on that side of the Chamber and not on this.
As has been pointed out in a number of social surveys over recent years, one-fifth of the population of this country cannot exist on their own resources. They have to rely on outside help. As hon. Members on both sides of the House know, there are millions of old-age pensioners who are living in poverty. If we accept that we are a prosperous industrial society, we must accept that the nature of poverty changes. In the midst of what is a supposedly prosperous society we have the poverty of old-age pensioners.
If we accept, as we must, that we have made great social and economic progress since the end of the last war, we must recognise the tremendous contributions that our old-age pensioners made in bringing that about. They played their part in creating the wealth which the present generation is enjoying. The tragedy is that they do not enjoy it themselves. Those are some of the things which we expect the Government to take notice of when considering the Bill.
One hon. Member opposite spoke in glowing terms of the dignity of the judges with their ermine and their scarlet robes. I think that there is no more dignified person in this country than the old-age pensioner, who bears his poverty with dignity and who shows a fine spirit of independence which would be as admirable in a judge as in anyone else. When talking of dignified people, we should remember how dignified are the old-age pensioners.
In my constituency we are fortunate enough to have hundreds of people who do everything in their power for the welfare and well-being of old-age pensioners—local authorities, voluntary organisations and people from all walks of life. They do what they can for old-age pensioners and for others in unfor-

tunate circumstances—the sick, the disabled, the unemployed and so on. Throughout the county of Durham, Scotland and South Wales people are brought up to accept it as a personal honour that they should do everything they can to relieve the plight of such people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South mentioned disabled people. In industrial areas we are not concerned with legal jargon. We know what really happens. Before I came to the House I was a miner. I have seen many strapping young men struck down by serious injury in the pits, men who were earning £16, £17 or £18 a week through working hard and then who found themselves no longer able to work but still having to maintain a wife and a family.
When we talk of differentials and values of pensions, those are the things which the Government should consider. I am not saying that the people whom I have mentioned live in dire poverty—far from it. Fortunately, the Labour Government of 1945–51 improved their position immensely, but much still remains to be done. Although the earnings limit for pensioners and widows is to be raised, that will be no consolation to men in South Wales, in Scotland and in Lancashire who are now nearing 65 years of age. In those areas there is high unemployment. In Durham we have ten people chasing one job. We have nearly 2,000 unemployed youngsters under 18 years of age and some of them have never had a job. We have unemployed people standing at the pits and factories waiting for people to retire so that they can get their jobs.
Let the Government face up to these human problems as they are facing up to the problem with which this Bill deals and as they face the problem presented by the retirement of ex-Speaker Morrison. In simple language, let the people whose case we have made have a fair crack of the whip. That is all we are asking. Let the Government fulfil their election promise to the neediest section of the community. Before the Bill is given a Second Reading, let the Government give a categoric assurance that they will substantially raise the basic pension rates of the people for whom I am concerned.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: We are accustomed on occasions such as this to having a closed shop in the debate and to having members of the legal profession hogging the whole debate. I am very pleased that on this occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and other hon. Friends and I have decided that we ought to enter the debate and break up that closed shop. We know that the Government have never been in favour of the closed shop principle, but we think that some fresh air should be brought into a debate which is usually much too stuffy to attract much attention.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does not the legal profession already constitute a closed shop?

Mr. Manuel: Possibly. I think my hon. Friend is correct. I was about to deal with the legal profession, and perhaps we may get some more information from the Attorney-General.
In debates of this sort, it is generally only lawyers who take part. The lawyer's is a profession not always regarded as the best. Lawyers are often criticised. While I would be the last to say anything in any way to offend the dignity of judges, I presume that most of them were lawyers before they were judges. Consequently, there will have been a period in their careers when they had to review certain doubtful characteristics which are supposed to be those of lawyers. I do not want to take that any further, but I want to point out that those people in the higher judiciary with whom we are now dealing are human beings with the usual human failings of us all.
The Attorney-General gave us a history of the pension position of the judiciary in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is not part of our case that judges ought not to be well treated. We agree that judges should be well paid and we have taken steps to see that they are well paid. Not long ago we substantially increased their salaries. We agree that they should have good pensions.
However, if the Government want to spend money in giving relief to a certain section of the people, they ought not to

have brought forward this Bill at this time. In comparison with the vast majority of people, members of the higher judiciary are extremely well catered for, with both salaries and pensions. I have always believed, as I have said many times before, that if the country is going through a prosperous period and if the Government feel that they have money to distribute, it is their bounden duty in whatever way they can to assist those people who belong to the weakest sections of the community. It is not a weak section of the community which we are discussing tonight.
I want to ask the Attorney-General one or two questions. I presume that it is not merely accidental that the Bill should come forward at this time. The Attorney-General briefly referred to some commitment made on the last occasion when pensions for the judiciary were discussed.

The Solicitor-General: It was on the occasion of the Pensions (Increase) Bill on Second Reading in the House of Lords.

Mr. Manuel: In the House of Lords? What I wanted to be clear about was that the House of Commons had not made a commitment that this provision must he made now and that we have not given judges a prior claim over other sections of the community. I am very pleased that the Solicitor-General has helped me to clear up that point. Could we be told by the Attorney-General, who is the fountain head from which these things flow, what representations have been made to him for these increases? They are not just accidental at this time, because the Government must have made some decisions about priorities. I want to know what are those priorities and what representations have been made to him about the judges' pension position which have compelled him to bring forward this Bill when there are so many other conflicting claims. If, as I suppose, some representations must have been made, what was actually asked for? Are we giving the whole of the pension that has been asked for? I do not know if trade union representation can come from the judges, but there must be some avenue of approach, and I should like to know what was that avenue of approach.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, in moving the Amendment, mentioned the word "contributory". Has it ever been considered whether these pensions are in any way contributory? I do not think that they are. I pose this question because the pension of all the people we know and have contact with is contributory. Over a long period of years they have had to budget in a painstaking and realistic fashion each week for the money which at the end of their working life gives them a very poor pension in relation to that which we are discussing.
While I recognise that the judges have to be completely free to exercise their judgment in the excellent way they do, I think that the disparity in pensions is far too great. If this nation has the greatness which it is supposed to have and exerts the influence throughout the world that it should, it would be very much better if we tried in a realsitic way to narrow the gap between those who are very well off and those who are not so well off and suffer very keenly once they have retired and have to exist on their pensions.
The hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) said that judges were very lonely people. That is probably as they make it. I know one judge who enjoys going to a football match. He has on occasions told me very good stories but I cannot repeat them all here. He is a likeable personality, enjoys company and does not lead the lonely life which the hon. and learned Member indicated.
After all, there are 81 judges in the higher judiciary alone. The whole realm of the judicial system and the friends which they have around them is much greater. Therefore, I do not think that lonely eminence is the lot of many judges. I hope that our judges do not remain too remote and so completely aloof. I had the suspicion that in some courts they were too far removed from the everyday affairs with which they were dealing and that if they had mixed a little more their judgment would have been exercised a little better.
We are dealing with 81 people. I have been examining some of the salaries paid to them. They are people who during their lifetime as judges have

been earning very substantial sums of money and will not be completely dependent on the pension indicated in the Bill. They will have been able to make substantial savings and probably have dividends accruing from the investment of those savings. Consequently, they are not in the position of the people whom we are trying to bring into this debate and focus some light upon.
We intend to press the Government unceasingly, as we are trying to do tonight, to face up to their election pledges, because they led many thousands of people to believe that we were sailing into an even more prosperous era and that they would make it their business to see that the weaker sections of the community and the old-age pensioners, in particular, would have their share of that prosperity. That was the pledge made on practically every Tory platform in the country. But, when there is money to allocate, seemingly the old-age pensioners do not come into the picture.
The Lord Chancellor receives a salary of £12,000 a year—£8,000 as a judge and £4,000 as Speaker of the House of Lords. His pension is to be increased from £3,750 to £5,000, even after all the years of earning this high salary. Furthermore, he can go on until he is 75 years of age. However, that is the top position and is not the real criterion for judging this question. Let us consider the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary—to give them their full title. I do not know what the word "ordinary" means, because certain features of their existence seem to me most extraordinary.
There are nine Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, and they each receive a salary of £9,000 per annum. Next come the the members of the Court of Appeal. The Master of the Rolls receives £9,000, and another eight judges each receive £8,000. Then there is the High Court of Justice. There are seven judges in the Chancery Division, each of whom receives £8,000. The Lord Chancellor presides over that court. The Queen's Bench Division consists of 24 judges, each of whom receives £8,000 a year. That Division is presided over by the Lord Chief Justice, with a salary of £10,000 per year.
I am sorry that we have no Scottish legal luminaries present on the Government Front Bench to throw further light on the


position in Scotland. They may be within call, however, and the Secretary of State may be able to buttress his speech by calling upon their aid. In Scotland, in the Inner House of the Court of Session, the Lord President receives a salary of £8,000. Although I do not advocate high salaries, I cannot see why Scottish judges receive less than English ones. It would seem that law is cheaper in Scotland. Under the Lord President there are another three judges in the Inner House of the Court of Session, each of whom receives £6,600 a year.
Then we have a second division. In football we know that the team at the top of the second division goes up to the first division, and I understand that the same principle applies in this case. At any rate, in the second division we have the Lord Justice-Clerk, who receives £7,800, aid three other judges who receive £6,600 each. In the Outer House of the Court of Session there are seven judges, each of whom receives £6,600 a year.
As I understand it, the nine Lords of Appeal receive pensions on top of their £9,000 a year salaries. They can retire after five years' service or less, if illness causes them to, with a pension of £2,225, arid if they serve for fifteen years they receive a pension of £4,500.
I do not know whether any Northern Ireland Members are present. I take it that they have some interest in what will happen to the judges of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland. They, again, seem to be a little lower in the scale—lower even than Scottish judges, but on a par with them in the case of the four judges of the Supreme Court, who receive £6,500 each. I do not know why they receive £100 less than their Scottish counterparts. The Lord Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland receives £7,500.
My hon. Friend referred to the question of retrospective payment, and that question enters into this matter in regard to the period between the introduction of the Measure and the date when it becomes law. Any judge who retires between those dates will receive retrospective payment. I would point out that the trade union movement has always been subjected to the most determined opposition in its efforts to get retrospective payment for wage claims

or pension awards. The same considerations apply in the case of workmen's compensation. It is most difficult to establish a principle of retrospective payments of that character.
The Government have been ill-advised to bring forward the Bill at this time. We have well over 1 million old-age pensioners who have been forced to draw National Assistance because of their poverty, and there are many other categories in a similar plight—people in receipt of sickness and unemployment benefit; people drawing National Assistance payments, and industrial injury cases. I am prepared to go further than my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) in this matter. It is tragic that a young man in the full flush and vigour of manhood, who has been maimed while engaged in his industrial occupation and cannot follow that or any other occupation afterwards, should have to live in complete poverty, comparing his position with that which he would have been in if he had been able to continue working with his full vigour and strength. Because such men have lost their jobs through industrial injuries their families are sentenced to live to a much lower standard of living than they would otherwise enjoy.
I worked as a railwayman for many years—as a locomotive fireman and driver on main line trains, when many railwaymen received no pension at all. After many years of service they had to retire without a pension. Today, such men receive a miserable pension of a few shillings a week, which cannot be regarded as in any way commensurate with the services they have rendered. We should consider the whole question of pensions in the industrial sphere, and equate them as they are equated in respect of the higher judiciary. If the Government will not do that, and if the House is to be continually confronted with the singling out of selected sections of the people for special treatment, many more hon. Members on this side of the House will have to make many more determined efforts to force the Government to recognise that a great deal of feeling is boiling up all over the country in regard to this matter. The Government must realise that people will not continue merely to read about pension and salary increases for judges and


similar sectors of the community and say and do nothing about them. They are beginning to talk very critically about how these things are managed in this Parliament.
I hope that the Attorney-General will convey to the members of the Cabinet that something ought to be done as soon as possible for the weaker sections of the community, especially those people on National Assistance, the old-age pensioners, the sick and the unemployed, all of whom are having such a difficult time.

7.31 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I think it would be convenient for me now to speak briefly, not upon the general points made in this debate but on those more particular points relating to Scotland which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy). My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General dealt with the general case for revising and bringing up to date the pension arrangements for the higher judiciary.
So far as concerns the judges in the Court of Session, the relevant pension enactment referred to in Clause 1 is the Judges' Pensions (Scotland) Act, 1808, which provided for a pension proportionate to a judge's salary at the time of his retirement. I wish to make clear that in calculating the pension of a judge who retires in 1959 the salary used is not his present salary but that fixed for his office by Parliament as long ago as 1877. The reason for this is that the increase in judicial salaries approved by Parliament in 1954 by the Judges' Remuneration Act of that year was specifically excluded from the pension calculation, with the result that judges of the Court of Session are pensionable only on their 1877 salary.
In the meantime, other judicial salaries have altered. The salaries of the lower judiciary were increased in 1957, and earlier this year there were further increases on the lines of those awarded to senior officers of the Civil Service. The upshot is that the salaries of the lower judiciary in Scotland have been pressing hard on the pensionable emoluments of the Supreme Court judges. In Scotland, the pensionable

salaries of the Senators of the College of Justice are now exceeded by those of the sheriffs principal of Lanarkshire and of the Lothians. I would point out to the hon. Member for Leith that they are exceeded also by those of the Chairman of the Scottish Land Court and the sheriffs substitute who sit in Glasgow.
That is the main reason why this Bill is needed in Scotland, apart, of course, from the general principles which were made clear by my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What about Ayrshire?

Mr. Maclay: The other point raised by the hon. Member for Leith relevant to the position of the sheriffs substitute—

Mr. Willis: rose—

Mr. Maclay: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry.

Mr. Hughes: What about Ayrshire?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member for Leith referred to the relative positions of the sheriffs substitute and of the county court judges. That matter is not dealt with in this Bill. It is a subject about which I have some knowledge and I have noted what was said by the hon. Member. But I think that he will agree that it was not possible to deal with the matter within the compass of this Bill.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Thanks to your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, this debate has covered a wide field. Speaking as a humble member of the junior branch of the legal profession, I hesitate to intervene particularly in view of what some of my hon. Friend's have been saying. But I wish to make clear that, while I desire to deal with other aspects of the Bill, I do not dissent from the observations which they have made. I, too, feel somewhat embarrassed that the Bill should be one of the first Measures introduced by the Government, and that they should ignore the very real interests of old-age pensioners and a great number of other people who deserve improved pensions.
Having said that, may I turn my attention to what seem to me to be one or


two fundamental constitutional aspects of the Bill? Having paid my tribute to the social requirements generally in the country and to the needs of a great many other members of the community, I think I may say that as responsible Members of this House we must realise and appreciate our responsibility for trying to establish and maintain a completely independent judiciary. After all, it is upon the independence of the judiciary that the fundamental rights and liberties of our citizens depend.
There are two aspects of this Bill which trouble me and upon which I hope we shall have some enlightenment from the Attorney-General. As I understand it, since the Act of Settlement, and probably before, judges have been irremovable. They have had a kind of livelong right to remain in office. For the first time, by means of this Bill, we seek to provide that in future judges shall retire at the age of 75.
Will the Attorney-General tell us whether one of the reasons for this proposal is that in the past it has been found that after reaching the age of 75 judges have become so senile as not to be able properly to perform their judicial function? Unless that be the case, I find it difficult to see the reason for this innovation. My limited experience leads me to believe that there have been judges in the High Court and the Court of Appeal who were over the age of 75 but were able to discharge their judicial functions at least as well as some younger judges.
Will the Attorney-General also tell me whether I am right in thinking that one of the results of the provision in this Bill will be to make it virtually impossible to appoint anyone to the bench who is over 60 years of age? As I understand it, in future judges will qualify for the full pension only if they serve for the full period of fifteen years, apart from having to retire because of illness? Since there will be compulsory retirement at the age of 75, I take it that in future it will be difficult to appoint anyone to the bench who is over 60 years of age. I am not saying whether that is a good or a bad thing, but I should have thought there might have been some objection to it.
No doubt in the future, as there have been in the past, there will be occasions

when, other things being equal and apart from the provisions in this Bill, it might well be desirable to appoint someone to the bench who is over the age of 60, but where, owing to the provision of this Bill, such a person might be embarrassed and prejudiced by such an appointment.
There is a wider question which I think ought to concern this House when considering the judiciary and judicial pensions. As things stand at present, as you, Mr. Speaker, will be aware and as I have said for a very long time, elevation to the judicial bench has been confined to members of the Bar. Personally, I am not at all sure that that is a good thing, and I should have thought that it was something which this House might well investigate in the future, but it is particularly important to make one or two comments on it at the moment, for this reason.
In so far as appointment to the bench is confined to membership of the Bar, there would seem to me to be some real reason for some public misgiving, because, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, there has been voiced recently and during the last few years some concern about the position of the English Bar.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member imputes knowledge to me, and it is true that I have knowledge of such matters. What I am not clear about is how he relates his observations to the Bill, and I should be obliged if he would explain.

Mr. Fletcher: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I thought I had tried to show that this Bill covered a very wide field. We have heard a great deal from some of my hon. Friends about the miners, the railwaymen and the old-age pensioners, and, surely, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the pensions of the judiciary, if what was said by my hon. Friends was in order, it is in order to make a few observations about this very limited field within which the judiciary—and these are the only people eligible for judicial functions—are recruited? It is that aspect of the matter to which I refer, and I should have thought that my remarks were clearly in order.
May I ask your permission, Sir, to try to develop my argument? My argument is that, in considering whether we should make provision for judicial


pensions, we are entitled to consider the very restricted field within which those eligible for judicial pensions will be recruited, and I should have thought that that was at least as germane to the purpose of this Bill as a good deal of what you have already been kind enough to allow in this Second Reading debate.
I think it is particularly relevant, Mr. Speaker, for this reason. We are concerned not only with seeing, as we must be in this House, that there should be a proper payment to the judiciary and that the judiciary should be well provided for and well pensioned, but that members of the judicial bench should be well recruited. Unless we make provision for that as well, it is difficult to provide adequate and suitable pensions for judicial offices. What I am worried about is the fact that there is a good deal of concern about the English Bar. For example, in yesterday's The Times, a letter was given a very prominent position—

Mr. Speaker: I cannot conceive how the prosperity or the lack of prosperity of the Bar has anything to do with this Bill to make provision for judicial pensions.

Mr. Fletcher: Could I perhaps try to bring myself within order by observing that the Government, in seeking to make provision for judges' pensions, are perpetuating a system under which elevation to the bench is limited to the Bar? As I understand it, we are also making an innovation of some considerable constitutional importance by a departure from the Act of Settlement, and, for the first time, are placing an age limit for the compulsory retirement of judges. That being so, it seems to me relevant to consider whether that is a wise provision to make.
As I said just now, one of the consequences of this Bill, as I understand it, will be that in future it will be virtually impossible, owing to its provisions, to elevate to the bench anyone over the age of 60. That is something quite different, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, from the system which has obtained in the past, and it is for that particular reason that it is important to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there has recently been a good deal of criticism about the elements at the Bar from which learned

judges are recruited and, particularly, about the difficulties at the Bar. This is very relevant—

The Attorney-General: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman has just been ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker in dealing with these very matters. You have just come into the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to go back to them?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray): It certainly would not be in order to contravene any Ruling given by Mr. Speaker. The House knows how I am placed, in that I have just come into the Chair. I am listening carefully, and I hope that the hon. Member will not go further than he should go in what he is saying.

Mr. Fletcher: May I say that I should be the last in any circumstances to seek to take advantage of the fact that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have recently come into occupation of the Chair, because you are not, presumably, aware of the circumstances in which Mr. Speaker gave me his guidance in order to embarrass you? I had hoped that if Mr. Speaker had continued to occupy the Chair I should have been able to develop my argument with his permission, as I am quite sure I should have been able to do. In view of the intervention of the Attorney-General it may be a little more difficult for me to do that, but the last thing that I should wish to do would be to dispute your Ruling or the rules of order.
I will, therefore, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, bring my remarks to a conclusion by observing that while I think the Government are perfectly entitled to make suitable and adequate arrangements for judicial pensions, they should at the same time bear in mind the full implications of the innovation in this Bill whereby they provide for the compulsory retirement of judges at the age of 75. I hope that when the Attorney-General replies we can have some comments from him on that aspect of the situation.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I rise for only a few minutes to make the very strongest possible protest at the way in which Scottish Members are being treated in this debate. I have no concern with the English judiciary. My experience of English judges has been


singularly unfortunate. My only criticism about this age limit is that I once met Mr. Justice Swift in his professional capacity and my only regret was that he had not retired at 45.
I suggest that while the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General have listened to this debate with a great deal of interest and attention and have followed every possible point, we are entitled to protest against the way in which we have been treated by the legal advisers of Scotland. We have a Lord Advocate and we have a Solicitor-General for Scotland. I used to protest that the Solicitor-General for Scotland was not a member of this House and that the Lord Advocate had to bear the burden of advising us on Scottish legal questions. After a great effort, a Solicitor-General for Scotland succeeded in getting a seat in one of the Glasgow constituencies so that now we have two Law Officers. Neither of them has been here today, and I wish to protest on behalf of the Scottish judges at the way in which the Law Officers for Scotland have let the side down.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Does my hon. Friend think that they may have been rather shy in intervening in a matter which might affect them, as they might be promoted to the bench?

Mr. Hughes: I believe that observation is very pertinent, but shyness on the part of lawyers in asking for legal remuneration is a quality which has passed my notice. I want to make this point, which I think is a perfectly legitimate and proper point to make. We have a Secretary of State in Scotland, we have three Under-Secretaries and two Law Officers. I think we are asking only the minimum in saying that we should have one of those Law Officers present and that we should not be left to the tender mercy of the Solicitor-General for England. Scottish hon. Members are entitled to have someone present who can guide us on Scottish legal questions.
It is true that the Secretary of State for Scotland made a speech of about two and a half minutes. When I asked him how the position of sheriffs in Ayrshire would be affected, he dismissed that as a matter of no importance and left us with "the boy on the burning deck". I have every confidence in the capacity of the Solicitor-General for England to

speak on behalf of England, but I suggest that Scottish law is such that every Scottish advocate and every Scottish judge, and potential judge, will feel disgusted at the way in which the legal profession in Scotland has been let down in this debate.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: It had not been my intention to intervene in this debate until I heard some of the speeches from hon. Members opposite. One of the things which has rather upset me is that, apparently, we talk about judges as we talk about people in terms of every man having his price. The impression has been conveyed by one or two of those speeches that unless these salaries and pensions are kept high there is a danger that we shall not be able to fill these positions with men of integrity and honesty. If members of the legal profession believe that, they have little right to expect millions of people in the country to be honest and to show integrity. It is a terrible reflection on lay magistrates, who are paid nothing. It suggests and insinuates that on the lay benches, where there is no payment, there might be graft, there might be corruption, there might be miscarriage of justice merely because lay magistrates are not financially independent and, therefore, cannot make independent judgments.
I have never understood how the more money one gets when one is working the bigger pension one should get when one retires. I should have thought that one has far more chance on £1,750 a year to make provision for retirement than those who receive smaller salaries. I should have thought that if I had £3,000 a year I should be able to make even more provision than on a salary of £1,750. The idea seems to be, however, that the higher the salary goes the bigger the pension must be.
In the Bill there are qualifying periods which the judiciary have to serve for a pension, unless they are afflicted with sickness and have to retire earlier. The appointment of Lord Chancellor is made by the Prime Minister and is a political appointment which can change. If we had five elections, say, in five or seven years, the occupant of the office could change five times. The political forces are still fairly evenly balanced and the


margins are very slight. It would be possible to have three or four elections in quick succession, each side making its own selection of Lord Chancellor. I ask the Solicitor-General whether, in those circumstances, assuming that a man had been Lord Chancellor for nine months, he would be entitled to a pension of £5,000? If twelve months after an appointment another Lord Chancellor were appointed, would the one who had served for only a year be entitled to £5,000?
I should like to know how it is that this House is prepared to put the pension of the Lord Chancellor, who in another place occupies the same position as Mr. Speaker in this House, higher than we this afternoon voted for our ex-Speaker. We say that in relation to the Speaker the pension shall be £4,000, but for the Lord Chancellor we say it should be £5,000. I shall be very glad if the Solicitor-General can give me a little enlightenment on these points.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I very much deplore the fact that we have no representative from the Scottish Office present, neither the Secretary of State for Scotland, an Under-Secretary or the Lord Advocate, nor the Solicitor-General for Scotland. This bill has been presented, not only by Mr. Attorney-General, but is supported, among others, by Mr. Secretary Maclay and the Lord Advocate.
The Lord Advocate has not put in an appearance. So far as I know, there has been no apology for the absence of the Scottish Law Officers. It may be that they have gone to see whether there is a vacancy on the bench. It may be that they are very modest. When a matter like this is raised, hon. Members have to declare an interest, if they have one, and perhaps they did not want to anticipate an interest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) has been talking about political appointments. When we look at the history of Lords Advocate and Solicitors-General for Scotland, we find that often they go to the bench. It is one of the recognised political promotions. I should have thought that in

a matter of this importance, when we are making important changes, we could have had the benefit of the advice of these gentlemen, based on their knowledge and experience, on questions which naturally arise when we discuss a Bill such as this.
I am dismayed at what we have heard from the legal fraternity. There is continual harping on the suggestion that unless we pay judges certain pensions and emoluments, not only for the men concerned but for their wives, somehow or other we shall not attract into these high and distinguished offices people of the highest rank. Things are coming to a lamentable pass in this materialistic society when money is the one thing that counts. It is not the position, not service to the nation in what is probably the most honoured part of their profession, but the touchstone of all their activities is money. I hope that hon. Members opposite who spoke for the legal profession and supported the Bill and stated that point of view were stretching it a little. I should hate to think that our justice depended entirely on material considerations.
It is evident from reading the Bill that a very limited number of people are involved. I should like to ask for firm information in relation to Scotland. Someone said that the number involved was 86.

Mr. Manuel: Eighty-one.

Mr. Ross: What is the position of those already retired, because they are involved in the 12 per cent. increase for those who retired prior to 9th July, 1959? Any estimate of the cost of the Bill in the current year can be related not to the people presently holding the offices, but to the people who are retired. The £55,000 additional cost in a full year must be related purely to those who are already retired. After all, the Government are not going to pay additional pensions to those presently in employment.
How many people in Scotland are affected by the Bill? How many are affected by the 12 per cent. increase in Clause 7? How much will that mean in additional taxation which will have to be raised in Scotland? This is important, because there has just been a


General Election. Every time anything costing money was mentioned hon. Members opposite asked what it would cost and where the money was coming from. I dare say that even the Lord Chancellor in his political dress would make political speeches during the General Election.

Mr. Ellis Smith: He did.

Mr. Ross: I am sure that the Bill has come as no surprise to him. It was printed and ready to be brought out, but he did not tell people in the country that whilst he was opposed to giving an increase to old-age pensioners he was all set and ready with his friends to put through a Bill which would raise his own pension from £3,750 to £5,000. Do the Government think this is right? Can they wonder at the reaction of people in the country when there is that different method of dealing with the needs of particular people?
The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow is very relevant. The office of Lord Chancellor is a political appointment. He sits in the Cabinet. He is not only head of the legal system in this country, but is also a very active political being and participates in General Elections and makes speeches about costs. The Lord Chancellor asked where the money would come from, but one of the first things with which he is associated after the General Election is raising his own pension from £3,750 to £5,000 a year. Apart from the Lord Chancellor being given a higher pension than that given to the incumbent of the Chair in the House of Commons, does any question of abatement arise? We need to look at the original legislation to discover that. We should be given some information about the £5,000. If there are no questions of abatement in the original Act, do the Government feel that there ought to have been in relation to the increase now being made?
I want to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who are not yet here, what has happened since 1954. In 1954, the same judges with whom we are dealing tonight were given an increase in salary. Such was the mood of the House that the Government felt it necessary to say, "Do not worry. We are putting in a proviso".
Section 1 (1) of the Judges' Remuneration Act, 1954, provided that the increases in salary made then should not affect the amount of the judges' pensions. That is now being wiped out. It means that once and for all judges' pensions will be on a formula basis. It is a very good formula. After service for five years or less they are entitled to 25 per cent. of their salaries. For fifteen years' service and over the pension rises to half the salary received in the year before they retire. That is very good.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) mentioned our superannuation scheme. What arises in our minds is that we should congratulate the judges on having achieved this. We should wonder how they found such a receptive audience when they advanced their case to the Government. We do not need to look at judges' pensions again. All the concentration now will be on their salaries. Any change made to their salaries will automatically increase their pensions. It is a lovely position to be in—nice work if you can get it, and the judges have got it.
When will these benefits and this justice be applied to the rest of the country? A handful of people will be affected in Scotland. It is half pay for all but one in Scotland. We are entitled to an explanation, not only for my benefit, but for the benefit of the English and Welsh Members, of why one person should be treated differently in Clause 3. I refer to the Chairman of the Scottish Land Court. Clause 3 (1) says:
The foregoing provisions of this Act shall not apply to any person who holds an office listed in the First Schedule to this Act at the commencement of this Act, unless he elects that those provisions shall apply to him; and in default of such an election the annual amount of the pension which may be granted to him under the relevant pension enactment on his retirement shall in any case be one half of his last annual salary.
The First Schedule details in relation to Scotland the Lord Justice General, the Lord Justice Clerk and the Senator of the College of Justice in Scotland.
Clause 9 (3) says:
In relation to the person who holds the office of Chairman of the Scottish Land Court at the commencement of this Act, subsection (1) of section three of this Act shall have effect as if for the words 'one half' there were substituted the words nine sixteenths'.


The Chairman of the Scottish Land Court is not mentioned in the First Schedule. That is a mystery. I could probably suggest the solution, but it is not for me to solve the intricacies of the Bill. That task should be undertaken by someone sitting on the Government Front Bench. The Lord Advocate should have helped us. Instead of getting one half of his salary as in the cases sited in Clause 3, he will get nine-sixteenths. Why is more than justice done to this one person? It may well be another injustice to the English Law Lords. The reason is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) knows—he is learned in all these matters relating to the law; I suppose that that is one of the penalties of having represented Edinburgh, North—that this gentleman starts off with a much smaller salary. Nevertheless, the provision must be justified, and the Secretary of State ought to be here to justify it.
Why are we now to have this inflexible provision of retirement at 75? Why 75? Why was it necessary to bring in compulsory retirement at all? Have there been cases where people have been found to be very unsatisfactory over that age? How do those cases balance against those of persons who have been found to be very unsatisfactory under the age of 75? I am perfectly sure that there are as many judges unsatisfactorily carrying out their work under the age of 75 as over it. In fact, by insisting on this inflexible rule of retirement at 75, we may be robbing ourselves of valuable and experienced men who are capable of carrying on for some time.
If it is right to make 75 years the age at which these people must retire, why have the Government left it until now, since the difficulties that have arisen are obviously presently evident? Does this compulsory retirement cover judges presently carrying out their duties, or is it to apply only to newly-appointed judges? It may well be that there is a lack of courage here, and I should like to have the Scottish side of it justified.
I can finish only as I began, by expressing my regret that we have present no representative at all of the Scottish Office to give adequate answers on Scotland's participation in this important piece of legislation. It is an important piece of legislation, because the law of

Scotland has always been different from that of England. By the Act of Union we are entitled to our own system of law, and we have our own system in relation to the bench as well. I would have thought that in order to maintain this distinctive individuality of Scottish law we might have had someone on the Government Front Bench who could have answered the case for Scotland.
One hon. Member spoke of the centuries-old tradition of impartiality in the law of Scotland. I interjected at that point, because we have many cases in Scottish administration of justice, particularly towards the end of the eighteenth century, when impartiality was not exactly the strongest feature of our judiciary. It was then that, for instance, we had a celebrated judge talking to a man even before the man had been found guilty, and saying, "Och, ye'll be nane the waur for a hanging."
We have a separate legal tradition, and when we are dealing with this matter of Scottish law and Scottish judges it is deplorable that we have not got in their places the Secretary of State for Scotland, or the Lord Advocate, or the Solicitor-General for Scotland, or the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, No. 1, or the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, No. 2, or the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, No. 3—three Under-Secretaries, two Law Officers and one Secretary of State. Nor can they tell us that they are away dealing with affairs in Scotland, because we also have a Minister of State to look after that, too.
This is not being just to hon. Members for Scotland or to this House of Commons, and I sincerely hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, the representative of the law in England, will draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland and that of his legal satellites to the dissatisfaction that has been expressed tonight.

8.14 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: Not very much remains for me to add in winding up the debate from this side of the House after the minute and exhaustive inquiry to which this Bill has been subjected. I certainly would not venture to join in the controversy between Scottish hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. I feel that the case put forward by those


of my hon. Friends who sit for Scottish constituencies is quite unanswerable, and I hope that the Solicitor-General for England will be able to satisfy them. The hon. and learned Gentleman is the only person here, as far as I can see, who is emboldened to accept that task.
Nobody can have sat for long in this House without both respecting and enjoying the deep and ringing sincerity of my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland). I feel sure, therefore, that the Solicitor-General will not be surprised that many of my hon. Friends—and particularly those who have appended their names to the Motion—have thought it appropriate in this discussion to cast a rather wider glance at the situation of the very large numbers of persons in this country at present living in one form or another of need; and, in particular, that of retirement pensioners.
Those lovers of fresh air, as they have been described by, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) have forcibly put the case, and have forcibly reminded the House of those wider aspects of our present-day set-up that they desire, and quite rightly desire, to be prominently borne in mind by the Government immediately after they have won a General Election on the cry that we have never had it so good.
I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will share the anxiety that the Mover and Seconder have expressed in moving this Amendment. Whether my hon. Friends desire to press the Amendment to a Division is a matter for them. Speaking for myself, I hope that they will not think that I in any way lack respect for the sincerity they have evinced when I say that I feel that the Bill technically looked at, at any rate, involves rather narrower issues. Again, speaking for myself, I feel that for the Bill covering as it does the somewhat narrow ground over which it stretches the case has been made out, and I for one would desire to support it.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) had quite obviously embarked on an elaborate study of the analogous situation in other pension spheres, by which he sought to test the appropriateness or

otherwise of the pension provisions contained in the Bill. I would not seek—indeed, I would not feel competent—to add to what he has said on that aspect, except to say that I agree entirely with his conclusions and hope that they commend themselves to the House.
The Bill does three things. By the Judges' Remuneration Act, 1954, this House thought it appropriate to increase the salaries of the members of the higher judiciary. As I understand from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, what the Bill does is to relate the pension provisions to those scales of salary, which have, as I say, already been approved.
The Bill does no more with regard to the pension provisions, but it has two other important objectives. One is the objective of arranging for a graduated pension system. I am bound to say that I feel that that is justified, and indeed fulfils a useful purpose. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said, if we have a retirement age of 75, and if a judge has to serve for fifteen years before he earns the full rate of pension, a judge who is appointed after the age of 60 will not be able, as I read the provisions of the Bill, to achieve the full pension scale on his retirement. The hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson), I think, pointed out that the provisions about graduated scales mean that, in terms of the maximum pension provision, appointments over the age of 60 will still be rendered possible, and a judge appointed over the age of 60 will be able to have the graduated pension scale appropriate to the number of years he actually serves before reaching 75.
I am bound to say that I think that is a useful and sensible provision, and I shall be glad to hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General that that is the object, or, at any rate, one of the objects sought to be compassed by the provisions with regard to graduated pensions.
This brings me to what is virtually the third provision of the Bill, namely, the provision for compulsory retirement at 75. I myself consider that any provision for retirement at a given age coupled with a power of extension is invidious and undesirable. I think it quite wrong that anyone serving in a judicial capacity


should be in the position of having to wonder whether his service has been such that he can hope, as he approaches retirement age, to have his service extended. That would be utterly undesirable, and I am quite convinced that, if there is a provision for retirement, it must be a fixed and specific provision which cannot in any circumstances be departed from. I am glad that the Government have accepted that view and have fixed, therefore, a definite age.
One of my hon. Friends asked why the age should be 75. Of course, the same question could be put with regard to whatever age was selected. If the age were 72, as was proposed by the two Royal Commissions which investigated the matter, the same question could be put about that. I suppose that the Government and those who decide upon the retiring age must look at the normal span of life and the normal processes of nature as the years go on and fix upon such a period of time as seems most suitable having regard to those gradual processes. I think that 75 is a reasonable age. Certainly, it means that the bench will be deprived from time to time of the services of highly experienced judges who could exceed this age limit. Equally, as a counterpoise to that, the disadvantage, possibly, of some judges staying on after a time when they ought really to have retired, will be avoided.
The Bill compasses, I think, three purposes which are in themselves desirable. Many of my hon. Friends have commented that these pension provisions are generous. I would reply in the terms which have been used by some of my colleagues at the Bar. The judges are called upon to discharge very arduous and anxious functions. Our personal liberties and our happiness depend tremendously upon their character and the skill with which they administer their judicial functions. They must be completely incorruptible. More than that, they must be known to be completely incorruptible and wholly inaccessible to any sort of temptation from any quarter whatsoever. They must have the complete trust of the people of this country. It is because they have had the complete trust of the people of this country that they occupy such a high position in our esteem.
Whether rightly or wrongly—I take the point made by some of my hon. Friends—it has always been our concept that high position and meritorious service in difficult functions should be remunerated on a scale appropriate to the degree and quality of the service rendered. That may be right or wrong. It may be that we should look to the satisfaction of the service itself as providing its own adequate reward. That has not been, for many decades past, the way in which we have approached these matters. Speaking for myself, I doubt whether it would be a practical approach at all. Judged by that test, I should have thought that the pension provisions are appropriate to meet the end which we seek by instituting them.
For those reasons, it seems to me that the Bill is justified, and I very much hope that my hon. Friends will feel that they can support it. I was glad to hear my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South and Chester-le-Street say that they moved and seconded the Amendment in no kind of hostility to the bench. They accept that the bench deserves well of this country. Their purpose in putting down the Amendment was to mark their strong sense that the needs and plight of many others should also be borne in mind. That I think was their very laudable and proper objective, but I hope that they may be able to feel that they have accomplished that objective by tabling and speaking in support of the Amendment. In the circumstances, I hope that they may not feel it necessary to press the matter to a Division.

Mr. H. Hynd: Would my right hon. and learned Friend deal with this point? What would happen if one of the persons to benefit under the Bill were appointed Governor-General of Australia? Would he still get the full pension?

Sir F. Soskice: I do not have the pleasure and honour of being the Solicitor-General. I think that my hon. Friend's question would be better addressed to the hon. and learned Gentleman than to myself. I say to the Solicitor-General that he has had a very pertinent question put to him. It is directly relevant and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will give my hon. Friend a fully satisfactory answer.
For myself, I would certainly agree that the Bill should be given a Second Reading.

8.27 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) for the high eloquence with which he expounded and sustained the principles of the Bill. I am also grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) for his careful examination of the Bill in relation to other pension provisions in the public service.
I am glad to think that the Bill has been widely welcomed on both sides of the House. I recognise that some hon. Members opposite, for reasons which we entirely understand and respect, have expressed misgivings. Like the right hon. and learned Member for Newport, we on this side also have a high regard, as I hope he knows, for the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and his hon. Friends. We certainly do not complain that they should be mindful and should remind the House of the lot of the less fortunate members of the community at a time like this. Nevertheless, I venture to think that such an approach to a Measure like this is wrong.
I think that this was put very well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) during the Second Reading of the Judges' Remuneration Bill, 1954, when a number of such considerations arose. My right hon. Friend said:
Each case must be decided on its own merits in the public interest. It is the longterm interests of fundamental institutions of the State which alone must rule."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 23rd March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 1058.]

Mr. Manuel: While accepting what the hon. and learned Gentleman says about the quotation from the speech of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), would not he agree that over and above there being a right place there should be a right time for introducing changes of this kind?

The Solicitor-General: If the hon. Member has patience, he may find that I shall deal with the points on which he feels impelled to intervene and ask question. I intended to deal with the timing of the Bill.
As to the high importance of the judiciary in our constitutional scheme of things, there has been no dispute whatever. In moving and supporting the Amendment, hon. Members made that clear. We in this House cherish our own place in the Constitution, and, equally, are the first to value that of the judiciary. Just as we recognise that our own forerunners here played a leading part in the vindication and consolidation of the liberties of the British people, and, indeed, in their extension to distant places in the world, to peoples who were not known to exist at the time of Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights, so we take pride in the fact that the rule of law, in the development of which our judiciary has played such a stalwart part, is one of our most valuable exports to the outside world.
We all recognise that it is not enough for the preservation of freedom to have a virile Parliament continuing, as we hope, to recruit able and dedicated men. We here above all depend on the fact—again, I quote my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford—that
there is behind Parliament an independent judiciary applying and enforcing the law with high integrity and a great measure of common sense and knowledge of daily life, and with high professional skill, and applying it in conformity with the intentions of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and the hon. Member for Chesterle-Street (Mr. Pentland) spoke for the ordinary people and very engagingly put it as "our people". I venture to suggest—I am sure they would be the first to agree—that the people owe, partly at least, to the judiciary something they value more highly than their material prosperity, and that is their civil liberties. It is in that spirit that we should be concerned with the Bill.
It is, therefore, a major concern of the House to foster and maintain not only the independence and probity of the judiciary—because, with respect to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), we take its independence and probity for granted, and safely so—but also the recruitment of the highest standard of ability to the ranks of the judiciary.
Mr. Attlee, as he then was, put it like this when he spoke in support of the Judges' Remuneration Bill:
The general level is high, but we have to maintain it high.
Bringing his observations very close to the subject we are discussing today, he went on to say:
It is a very penny-wise, pound-foolish policy not to pay the right remuneration. One has to consider this in general relation to the standard of life and the cost of living and to opportunities for earning outside."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 1062, 1065.]
Today, I do not suppose that anybody would disagree that pensions are an aspect of remuneration for the job. It is a fact of modern life that the pension attached to a job is part of its attraction. Once these general considerations are accepted—the constitutional position of our judiciary, the facts that we must continue to attract into the judiciary men of the highest character and ability and that a pension attached to a job is today part of its attraction—certain consequences follow.
First of all, where one finds that the pension which was formerly thought proper is very seriously eroded by inflation, there is likely to be a case for its increase, particularly where the burden of the office has increased rather than lessened. Secondly, whilst his salary must be such as to attract men of high ability into the judicial service, the judge's pension also must bear some relationship to that which a man of comparable ability can earn outside the public service. That was really a point that Mr. Attlee was making.
Thirdly, the pensions of the higher judiciary should bear a reasonable relationship to those awarded to the higher servants of the executive branch of government. Fourthly, within the judicial service itself there must be reasonable differentials so that those of higher rank and higher responsibility gain a higher pension than those of lower rank and responsibility. Each of these considerations points inescapably towards the necessity of raising the pension of the higher judiciary.
As for the modern buying power of the pension, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has pointed out, the pension of the High Court judge

today is no more than it was in 1825—indeed, in absolute terms it is less, after translation of a quarter of that pension into a right to ancillary benefits. Yet to produce the equivalent purchasing power today of a pension of £3,500 in 1825 or indeed in 1914—for I take 1914 as my base as the start of the modern inflationary era—would demand over £15,000. These figures, quite rightly, do not take into account the modern burden of taxation, because that is something which every citizen must be expected to shoulder.
But that means, apart from the increased taxation, that modern judges in retirement are far worse off than were their predecessors, not only comparatively to other sections of the community but also absolutely. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) put it this way in the debate on the 1954 Act:
The real cause for this increase is a quite simple one, for which we need make no apology at all, that the value of the salary is not now equal to the nature of the job." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 1099.]

Mr. Ross: This is interesting. The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) and to Lord Attlee in relation to the Judges' Remuneration Act, 1954. We may agree with everything that he has said and is saying, but why was it that in 1954, when they were all saying these things, the Government deliberately inserted a provision in that Act stating that an increase in salary would make no difference to the position of these pensions?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member loses sight of the fact that there is a time and place for everything. We have made a number of advances since then in pensions. If he would wait again he will see that there are a number of considerations arising in the matter of public pensions which make imperative now this decision, which at any rate in 1954 could wait in view of the rise in salaries.
I was coming to the second point that the judiciary, considered as the consummation of a legal career, has to compete with other callings in attracting recruits


of a high calibre. The financial prizes open to the professions or the public service have always been and must always remain far eclipsed by those available in industry and commerce. Indeed, there are the other satisfactions which, to the minds of many, more than compensate for the greater emoluments outside.
Nevertheless, there comes a point when the discrepancy in salaries and pensions between the public or judicial services and those paid outside can become damaging not only to the comparative standing of those services in the community, but also to their power to recruit men of first-class ability. Again I quote Mr. Attlee. He said:
One can have a terrible waste of public and private money if one has incompetent judges.
Salaries in industry and commerce have increased to keep pace with the fall in the value of money; and pension schemes have been increasingly introduced in those spheres, the pensions being related to salaries. The judge's pension, however, remains at the figure fixed in 1825, as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, and with less than a quarter of its 1914 value. I do not say for a moment that any section of the community has a sacred right to the maintenance of its comparative position in the salary or pension scale or to differentials existing at any one time, but I do say that a dramatic shift against our judiciary in this respect, such as we have seen, is something that no one who knows and values its constitutional rôle can view without misgiving.
There was a similar danger of such a shift, although far less, in the Civil Service. That was recognised and brought to our attention by the Priestley Commission; and we are now, I think with universal approbation, pledged to pay the, civil servants a salary which fairly matches with those paid for comparable work outside the Civil Service, and the pensions of civil servants are, of course, linked to such salaries.
This has produced discrepancies within the public service to the disadvantage of the judiciary. Again, if we take 1914 as a base, the High Court judge then ha .d a salary of £5,000 and a pension of £3,500. A permanent secretary had a

salary of £2,000 and a pension, after forty years' service, of £1,333. In three years' time from now, when the recent Coleraine increases have had time to work through into the pension scale, a permanent secretary with forty years' service will have a pension of £3,500, a lump sum of £7,000 and a pension of £1,060 for his widow. That follows inevitably from decisions which this House took last April. The High Court judge's pension is today only £2,625, with a lump sum of the same amount and a pension of £875 for his widow.

Mr. H. Hynd: Not after forty years' service.

The Solicitor-General: Certainly not after forty years' service. What I am concerned with is that we should attract from the available sources of recruitment men of similar calibre into the higher ranks of the Civil Service and into the judiciary. I say that such a startling alteration in the relationship of the pension of judge and civil servant does not reflect a proper balance in the constitution or, in the way I ventured to put it to the hon. Gentleman, a proper balance of the comparative attractions of these two great careers, both of which are so vital to our public life.

Mr. J. T. Price: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to put a point? It is all right to put the point in this rather unbalanced form, but surely every judge who is appointed to the bench at a mature age as a man of outstanding quality has already served as a senior counsel in the other branch of the profession? Presumably, if he has all those brilliant qualities which qualify him to be a judge, he has made a dickens of a pile of money in his career at the Bar and cannot, therefore, be regarded in the same light as a civil servant who has devoted the whole of his career perhaps to working his way up the ladder from some junior position.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman's assumption is false and quite unjustifiable. There are many men of the greatest ability who have been appointed to the Bench who have been unable to make any savings at all.

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the 1954 debate. During that debate, I quoted


the wills of judges who had recently died and the considerable sums of money that they left.

The Solicitor-General: I read with considerable enjoyment the hon. Gentleman's speech in that debate, and I noticed that in every case the man concerned had practised at the Bar before the war at a time when taxation was nothing like the burden it is today.

Mr. Manuel: Today's judges are still comfortably off.

The Solicitor-General: On the third criterion, the relation of the pensions paid respectively to high executives and judicial officers, there is again a clear case for the Bill. I am certain that that consideration caused Lord Silkin in another place, when the Pensions Increase Bill was presented in the last Session, to raise precisely the question whether judges' pensions should not receive comparable treatment.
The matter does not stop there. Anomalies have developed in judicial pensions. As a result of the Coleraine Committee's recommendations at the beginning of this year, there was an increase in the salaries of higher civil servants. The salaries and, therefore, the pensions of the lower judiciary are reviewed whenever there is an increase in the salaries of higher civil servants, and those were therefore also increased earlier this year.
That has had the result, to which my right hon. and learned Friend drew attention, that certain members of the lower judiciary have pensions as great as and in some cases greater than High Court judges. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering rightly said that that was a distortion in the pension structure of the judiciary which could not be justified.
I turn now to some of the questions that have been specifically asked. A point was put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson), and the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), whether the graduated pension combined with the retirement age would not lead to the virtual impossibility—as I think the hon. Member for Islington, East put it—of appointing a person over 60 years of age. The right hon. and learned Member for

Newport opposite challenged that and asked whether it was not one of our objectives to get greater flexibility into the system of appointments?
I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It was one of our objects. At the present time the Lord Chancellor finds it very difficult to appoint a man over a certain age to the Bench because he is faced with the position that either that man will not be able to earn his full pension, or he may have to go on on the Bench to a fairly advanced age to earn it.
Under the new system of a graduated pension with a retirement age, anybody of the age of, say, 65, will be able to accept a judgeship knowing that he cannot earn his full pension if he is appointed at 65, but knowing exactly where he stands. That new source of recruitment to the Bench will be available to Lord Chancellors.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) raised the next point. He asked about the phrase in Clause 3:
… shall in any case be one half of his last annual salary.
He asked whether it would not be possible for a judge at present on the Bench to take advantage of the Clause and to get half his salary and yet be able to retire prematurely.

Mr. Hobson: No. 1 said continue beyond the age of 75.

The Solicitor-General: I am much obliged. The position is that Clause 3 (1) says that the foregoing provisions of the Bill, that is, all the provisions of Clause 1 and Clause 2, shall not apply to any sitting judge unless he elects that they shall apply to him and in default of such an election he shall get one half of his annual salary.
The effect of Clause 3 is that the foregoing provisions of the Bill do not apply to him. Therefore, although he enjoys the higher retirement pension of one half of his last salary, he does not get the benefit of any of the provisions of Clause I and Clause 2, including the right under Clause 1 (3, a) to retire after less than five years and to enjoy one quarter of his salary, or the provision for retiring at the age of 70 and enjoying a proportionate part of his pension. The words to which my hon. and learned Friend


drew attention, "in any case", are there to denote that the Clause applies to all cases of the judges who are affected by the default of election. If my hon. and learned Friend wishes, we can resume the point in Committee.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. South and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) asked whether the provisions of the Bill would be retrospective. It seems to me that there is no truly retrospective element. The increases in the pensions of the judges who are at present serving are not retrospective. They take effect only from the time that the Bill passes into law, which in this case, is the date of the Royal Assent. The provisions affecting retired judges and the widows of retired judges are not retrospective, or, if they are, not under this Bill. Any retrospection comes from other pension increase provisions, such as the Pensions (Increase) Act of last Session, where there was a similar provision for a 12 per cent. increase for those who were on flat rate salaries like Colonial judges.

Mfr. Manuel: It is important to get this matter clear. Is it not retrospective in that it will apply from before the date that the Bill receives the Royal Assent, in the sense that certain provisions are back-dated to people who will have retired by then?

The Solicitor-General: This is a matter which can be taken up in Committee. As I read the Bill, it is retrospective in the sense of the people whom it affects, but not retrospective in the date of payment. To see what people are affected, one has to look at the date of the passing of the Pensions (Increase) Act.
There were certain other questions which I was asked and which the House would probably prefer to have taken up in Committee.

Mr. Ross: No.

The Solicitor-General: I am content to go on if I am not delaying the House unduly.

Mr. H. Hynd: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman reply to the point which I raised and which is serious because of the provision in another Measure for a reduction of pension in the case of another job? The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember the

case I put. Supposing a judge retires and draws a pension under this Bill and is then appointed, say, Governor-General of Australia; will there be any reduction of pension?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman puts to me what is not, I think, a very likely case, but I can answer him quite specifically. There is no provision for abatement of judges' pensions, and there never has been. The only exception to that—and this is the point which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock raised—is the Lord Chancellor's pension, which is subject to an abatement provision.

Mr. Ross: I hoped that we might get some reply to the specific Scottish points raised by more than one hon. Member. I am prepared to excuse the hon. and learned Gentleman, because it is not part of his duty to answer for the Scottish Office.

The Solicitor-General: I was certainly not intending to reply to the specific Scottish points, as I was quite satisfied that they had been well-answered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
On all the grounds which we have reviewed—the high constitutional importance of the judiciary, the need to continue to attract into these ranks men of outstanding ability, the fact that the pension today plays a vital part in the pecuniary attraction of the job, the fall by over three-quarters—even disregarding taxation—in the buying power of the judges' pensions since 1914, the increase, by contrast, in pensions outside the public service, the fact that top civil servants' pensions have long overtaken and now far transcend judicial pensions, and the anomaly whereby the pensions of the lower judiciary may now equal or surpass those of High Court judges—an increase in the pensions of the higher judiciary is imperative and, indeed, overdue. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Fernyhough: May I have a reply to my question? Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me whether it would be possible for five men to be receiving a Lord Chancellor's retirement pension within a period of five years?

The Solicitor-General: Yes. There is, of course, no qualifying period at all


for very good reasons. There never has been. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be content if we took that up in Committee.

Question, That "now" stand part of the Question, put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — JUDICIAL PENSIONS [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law with respect to the pensions and other benefits attaching to certain high judicial offices, it is expedient to authorise the charge on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase in the sums payable out of that Fund which is attributable to provisions of the said Act applying to all or any of the following offices, that is to say Lord Chancellor. Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. Judge of the High Court of Justice or Court of Appeal, Judge of the Court of Session, and Judge of the High Court of Justice or Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, being provisions—

(a) amending the law with respect to the pensions or other benefits which may be granted to or in respect of persons retiring or dying in office (including persons who may have retired or died between the tenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine, and the commencement of the said Act)
(b) regulating the age of retirement from office;
(c) increasing pensions payable to persons who retired before the ninth day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine.—[The Attorney-General.]

9.0 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I would like an answer to a question which I asked in the last debate, and which I though could well have been answered then. I asked for some information about the cost of this operation. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says it is estimated that
the additional cost will not exceed £16,500 in the current financial year and £55,000 in a full year.

I suggested that someone in the Treasury could easily tell us the actual cost at least in respect of one of the items listed in the Money Resolution. The provisions of the Bill can be divided into three parts, as defined in the Money Resolution. The first amends the law with respect to pensions or other benefits; the second regulates the age of retirement from office, and the third refers to increased pensions payable to persons retiring before 9th July, 1959. Can we be told how much the last part will cost in this year and in a full year?

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I cannot give the hon. Member any more information than is given in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. There are many factors to be considered in this matter. In any case, the hon. Member left out the words:
Since the cost will depend on the number of judges in retirement at any time, it is impossible to forecast accurately what it will it amount to
which occur immediately before his quotation. One of the factors which make it impossible to estimate arises from the fact that under the Bill various options can be exercised, and until we know how they are exercised it is not possible to arrive at a precise estimate of the financial result, although we can make some kind of calculation. I can assure the hon. Member that the best calculation which can be made has already been set out in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum.

Mr. Ross: I am sorry to insist, but I am afraid that the Attorney-General has not been listening to me, or has not the Money Resolution in front of him. If he will look at the Resolution he will see that it refers to provisions:
(c) increasing pensions payable to who retired before 9th July, 1959.
There is no question of estimating how many of those who are now retired did so before 9th July of this year. That is surely within the ken of the people presenting the Money Resolution. We are told that the increase in this case is one of 12 per cent. That is also capable of calculation. It can be worked out how much that is likely to cost this year, estimating the time when the Bill will go through, in relation to the financial year. The Attorney-General should


be able to tell us how much it will cost in a full y ear.
Having asked the question the second time, I am very disappointed that I have not received an answer. When I first spoke I asked for this information to be given not only in the aggregate but in relation to those now retired in Scotland. I asked how many there were and what amount would be represented by an increase of 12 per cent. in respect of those judges who retired before 9th July, 1959. In view of the fact that a known number will get a known increase, I hope that I may now be given the in formation I seek.

The Attorney-General: I can give the hen. Member particulars about Scotland. I understand that there is one judge who retired before 9th July. The hon. Gentleman can calculate what is a 12 per cert. increase on his pension.

Mr. Ross: If I knew what his pension was, which, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, is at present based on a series of calculations, I could do so. But after all, we are employing the Treasury to present us with this information. We employ at least six Ministers in the Scottish Office. Here is a simple piece of information which should be available not only in respect of Scotland but also in relation to England. The Treasury is responsible, but I do not see a representative of the Treasury present on the Government Front Bench. I think that the Treasury is treating the House of Commons with little respect regarding the Money Resolution and I should like an answer to the point I have raised regarding paragraph (c) of the Resolution.

Mr. J. T. Price: before we part with this Money Resolution, I wonder whether either the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General can give me some information about another aspect of this additional liability on the Treasury? Under existing legislation in the Finance Act there is provision for a special remission of the whole of taxation on the salaries earned by members of the Bar during their last year of practice at the Bar. A learned gentleman who has reached the higher ranks of the legal profession as an advocate, and decides to cease practice at the Bar, can so arrange his

affairs in the final year of his practice as to have a great many fees coming in during that year which would be entirely free of tax.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must be careful to keep within the terms of the Money Resolution.

Mr. Price: I appreciate that mild rebuke, Sir William, if it be a rebuke.
I wish to show that this is directly related to the Money Resolution, because before we can know what this will cost as an additional liability on the Treasury we are entitled to ask what are the implications of this final tax-free year before a barrister ceases to practise at the Bar and becomes a judge.
The Solicitor-General gave us a pretty broad hint that this will give the Lord Chancellor and others concerned with the appointment of judges a greater freedom of selection. This additional pension is an additional incentive bonus. One might expect from what was said by the Solicitor-General that there will be a tendency to appoint judges of a more advanced age than at present. I should regard that as unfortunate from certain points of view. If we do that, we shall be faced with the additional cost of the remission of taxation for the last year in which a barrister practises at the Bar before being translated to the Bench. I wish to know whether anyone has gone into that matter to find out what the cost is likely to be.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Question is—

Mr. Price: On a point of order, Sir William. Before you put the Question, may I, with respect, ask for an answer to the question which I have asked?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of order. If no other hon. Member rises, the Chair has no option but to put the Question.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: I understand, Sir William, that you have not yet put the Question.
I wish to ask a question of the Solicitor-General, who seems to be doing some sums. Perhaps he can now tell us the position in Scotland under paragraph (c) of the Money Resolution. I do not think it is good form to take the


advice of the Attorney-General on all occasions, and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now advising that we should not be bothered, that the House of Commons does not count when we are discussing a Money Resolution, I think that his advice is bad.
There is also the question of the position in Ireland. During the course of my remarks on Second Reading I mentioned that subject. I do not know whether or not any hon. Members from Northern Ireland are here yet, but, obviously, they ought to be in the Chamber and taking an interest in this Money Resolution in order to find out how the payments are to be made to the higher judiciary in Northern Ireland. Seeing that they are not doing it, I should like, on their behalf, to ask the Attorney-General if the position in Northern Ireland could be explained as it is regulated by paragraph (c) of the Money Resolution. The right hon. and learned Gentleman volunteered the information that there was one judge in Scotland who retired before 9th July, 1959. I wonder if he would indicate the position in Northern Ireland in so far as there have been any retirements.

Mr. Ross: We must insist on this. We have been asking a specific question on something which is obviously capable of an answer.

Mr. Manuel: It is our duty.

Mr. Ross: I do not know who briefed the Law Officers tonight, or whether they are sitting in for the Treasury. We have asked a question in regard to lines 14 and 15 of the Money Resolution. Here we have the Treasury saying that it has agreed that money will be taken out of the Treasury for the purposes of paragraphs (a), (b) or (c). I quite agree that it would be difficult to estimate, and so I have not asked, what sum it is suggested would be taken out in regard to paragraph (a). There is nothing to prevent me asking. The same thing applies to paragraph (b), but when it comes to paragraph (c) we are dealing with something which is specific and is known. How many judges retired before 9th July, 1959, what pension are they now receiving and how much is the Treasury prepared to pay out? [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite should think of the brave speeches they made and where the money is coming from.

Mr. Manuel: They have not been here all day and do not know a thing about it.

Mr. Ross: In Clause 7, the actual provision is that there will be an increase of 12 per cent. in the pension of any judge who retired before the 9th July of this year. There is no explanation necessary. Here is a simple piece of arithmetic. The Government know the number of judges retired and the pensions which they are at present paying them and the Treasury should be able to calculate what that increase of 12 per cent. in a full year will be. Here we have the Attorney-General unable to answer. He can tell us of one Scottish judge who has qualified because he retired before 9th July, but he has not a clue about what he is receiving. I do not blame him at all. I am not holding the Attorney-General for England responsible for the negligence or the failures of the Law Officers of Scotland. He made a very brave effort. He was able to tell us that there was one person, and I hope he was right, because we will be able to check it. I do not want to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman following in the footsteps of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who give the Scottish Standing Committee one piece of advice one minute and then—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is not in order at this stage of the Bill to refer to what goes on in Scottish Standing Committee.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I entirely agree, and I return to the Money Resolution. I think I am in order in expressing my appreciation of the attention given by the Attorney-General in addressing himself to the question I put. I think he did his best; it was not a very good one, but I am not blaming him. I do not think that it is his job to be able to answer in relation to Scotland, but if he comes here and supports the Money Resolution properly briefed, not only by his office but as sitting in for the Treasury, he should be able to answer questions on the Resolution.
In the last Parliament when the present Solicitor-General had responsibilities for the Treasury, we were never able to catch him out on points like this. He did his homework. I take it that the Attorney-General just does not know the


answer and has not been briefed to answer this simple and relevant question. I sincerely hope that he will at least take to task those who provided him with information to satisfy the House of Commons that we ought to pass this Money Resolution. Should we pass the Resolution when the Government cannot give an answer to the simple question of how much it will cost the British taxpayer next year in relation to the judges who retired before 9th July, 1959, getting a 12 per cent. increase in their pensions?
I do not know whether one of these new calculating machines has been installed at the Treasury. If only one judge in Scotland has retired before that date, I am sure the Treasury could go to any junior secondary school in Scotland and get a child passing his qualifica Lion examination some time this year to give the answer. Has economy gone so far with this Government that they cannot give the answer to this simple piece of arithmetic?
Although I do not blame the Attorney-General for not being able to answer in relation to Scotland, he ought to be able to give the figures in relation to England and Wales. The fact is that he has allowed himself to be brought into the House to support the Money Resolution without having a proper brief in relation to the questions which we are obviously entitled to ask. He gave me an answer which was doubtful here and imponderable there, but there is not a single imponderable in paragraph (c) of the Resolution.
How many judges retired before 9th July, 1959? We have already been told that they are to get a certain increase in their pension. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should be able to tell us how much it will cost. Here we have present the serried ranks of the Conservative Party who made brave speeches on the hustings on such expenditure. I sincerely hope we shall find that some of those jubilant and joyful perorations which they have put behind them will cause them to ask what this is going to cost, but I am afraid they will get the same answer as I am getting, that the Government do not know.
Hon. Members opposite are going gaily to pass this without knowing what it costs. [An HON. MEMBER: "Lobby fodder."] It is not a question of Lobby fodder, but of the kind of speech they make to their constituents and what they do when they come here. They are entitled to know what this will cost under paragraph (c). I return to this point and we can repeat it as often as we like until we get an answer. This is why a Money Resolution comes before a Committee of the whole House. It is to enable us to probe what is involved. [Laughter.]

Mr. Manuel: It is not a laughing matter. It is our duty to know about these things. It is what hon. Members are elected for.

Mr. Ross: The Resolution authorises a charge on the Consolidated Fund under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). I am letting the Government off with (a) and (b), but I think we are entitled to get an answer on (c).

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law with respect to the pensions and other benefits attaching to certain high judicial offices, it is expedient to authorise the charge on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase in the sums payable out of that Fund which is attributable to provisions of the said Act applying to all or any of the following offices, that is to say Lord Chancellor. Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, Judge of the High Court of Justice or Court of Appeal, Judge of the Court of Session, and Judge of the High Court of Justice or Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, being provisions—

(a) amending the law with respect to the pensions or other benefits which may be granted to or in respect of persons retiring or dying in office (including persons who may have retired or died between the tenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine, and the commencement of the said Act);
(b) regulating the age of retirement from office;
(c) increasing pensions payable to persons who retired before the ninth day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, SUNDERLAND

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I am greatly obliged to my hon. Friends for the restraint they have exercised tonight, because it affords us more time than I had anticipated for discussion of the important matter of which I have given notice.
I want to give voice to the very real anxiety felt in my constituency, and in Sunderland as a whole, as the shadow of unemployment deepens and as we seem to be getting no response from the Government. We are becoming increasingly upset at the apparent complacency of the Government against a background of aggravating unemployment.
I begin by calling the attention of the House to the way in which unemployment has developed in Sunderland. Until 1956 and 1957 unemployment fell more or less continuously in Sunderland. In September, 1956, there were fewer than 2,000 unemployed. In October there were just over 2,000 unemployed. This position obtained in 1957, when in September we had just over 2,000 unemployed and in October, 2,120. In 1958 the position changed substantially for the worse. In September we had 3,405 unemployed and in October 3,733 unemployed. This year the trend has continued to worsen. In September we had 4,872 unemployed and in October, 4,946. In other words, over the past two years, in spite of the economic recovery which may have taken place in the country generally, in Sunderland unemployment has been more than doubled and has increased by 2,826.
This means that we now have an apparently rising level of unemployment. We can say that for all practical purposes it has already reached 6 per cent. We can say also that the prospects for this winter are worse than they were for last winter. This is not new. It has developed over the last two years.
Against this position in Sunderland, in the surrounding area, indeed in the whole of the northern region, the un-

employment figure has also doubled in the past two years. In immediately adjacent areas, such as Jarrow and South Shields, as the Board of Trade recognises, the difficulties of obtaining employment are not much less than they are in Sunderland. That is why I call attention to the prospects for the coming winter.
Within Sunderland we find ourselves still as dependent upon two basic heavy industries as we were before the war. We find that 40 per cent. of the working population is still engaged in coal mining and shipbuilding. We are fortunate in our coal mining in that at the Wear-mouth Colliery a good deal of capital expenditure has been incurred by the National Coal Board, and we hope that that colliery will employ a considerable number of Sunderland miners for a long time to come. On the other hand, we have also to consider the general coal position. I do not wish to speak at length about shipbuilding tonight, but we have to appreciate the difficulties that are rapidly overtaking this great national industry.
I am very happy to know that the Minister of Labour is coming to the North-East early next month. He will be very welcome. I am very sorry that we have not had a visit from the President of the Board of Trade. In view of our difficulties, I think that we are entitled to expect such a visit. I share with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) what he himself has described as the considerable disquiet there is in Sunderland at the failure of the Government—and I am not anticipating whatever explanation the Parliamentary Secretary may give—to help us get alternative work. I do not want to deal with it now, but we will have to deal with the major question of shipbuilding, and consider once more the possibility of alternative work in this industry. Tonight, I want to deal with attracting further industries and enterprises to Sunderland.
The new factories that have been brought to the trading estate at Pallion admittedly employed 5,400 people and, admittedly, they now employ 300 more than they did at this time last year. That makes some contribution to overcoming our difficulties, but I would emphasise that the trading estate factories are, in fact, employing only 100 more than they


were in 1956. In other words, they have made no real contribution to the difficulties we have faced over the last two years. I would also stress that they are employing fewer people than they did in 1951. This emphasises the failure of the Government over the past years to provide alternative work, and new forms of work, in Sunderland.
I want to touch on a project that we welcome, although it is not quite as attractive as it seemed a few months ago when it was first announced by the Parliamentary Secretary. In June, we were told that we would have a new factory. Subsequently, we learned that it would be a factory for the 60-Minute Cleaners. At the beginning of this month we were told that the plans and estimates were being drawn up. What progress has been made?
I welcome the possibility of bringing 170 new jobs to Sunderland, but the problem has become particularly urgent now for two reasons. First, a few years ago we were fairly satisfied with the opportunities in Sunderland of work for women. We are no longer satisfied. In fact, in the trading estate factories there are 1,000 fewer women employed than there were in 1951—yet there exist real opportunities for providing employment for women.
The second reason is this. Since the Parliamentary Secretary made his statement about this project we have got rather more than 500 additional unemployed people. We cannot afford delay in these circumstances.
Again, whereas this new factory, if it does come to be built, will provide 45,000 square feet, we now know that, next year, the Bristol Siddeley Engine Company is to close a factory of 66,000 square feet. Even if we have this new development, the overall position on the trading estate will be a loss, unless we find a new tenant for the factory to be vacated by the Bristol Company.
It is not surprising, therefore, that, in spite of the possibility of having the 60-Minute Cleaners, there is a good deal of anxiety and disquiet. Quite apart from the possibility of providing some employment for women, we must be realistic when thinking of the contribution which the trading estate can make in solving our difficulties in Sunderland. It

will provide employment for about 5,500, but I know well enough that it was estimated that it would provide for at least double that number.
The time has come for the Government to write down these estimates. We cannot expect the Pallion Trading Estate to provide employment for much more than it is employing now. We must recognise that the figures which are put out by the trading estate company are very unrealistic, and we must work against the background of basic figures. We must limit any expectations we have about employment which can be provided on the estate. We should not deceive ourselves with figures of potential employment. There has been a considerable falling away in the provision of employment for women. Also, in spite of all that has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary and other spokesmen of the Board of Trade, the possibility of further development at this trading estate is very limited indeed, particularly if the 60-Minute Cleaners factory is built.
My own view about this—I expect that it may be shared by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South—is that, over the past few years, in the North-East generally and in Sunderland in particular Development Area policy has been a dead letter. We have had really very little response from anyone concerned. It is true that, after some pressure in the House, we got ourselves recognised as a specially designated area under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, but no assistance has yet been made available to us. We have not had very much out of that Act. If I think of the various matters which have been called to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, what I quarrel about more than the fact that nothing has been done is that very little effort has been made to do anything.
I will give an illustration. The corporation, as the hon. Gentleman knows, made available the three sites, twenty acres, which would have cost £126,000 to develop. I know the dilemma of the Government. This will be a matter which will, no doubt, be discussed in Committee on the Bill at present before the House. I know that their powers are very limited. But what did we find? At the end of the day, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government said that they


did not consider the case one which should be considered for grant. It is no good the Parliamentary Secretary saying that the expenditure involved would have been very small. This is not only a matter of pounds, shillings and pence, but of the attitude of the Government towards a town which is facing very real difficulties.
What upsets me is that the Government ride two horses, both of which are very discouraging to us. First, they say, "Our powers are limited and we could not help you very much anyway". They then say, "The help with which we could provide you would be so trifling that we will not provide you with any at all." It would have been much better if the Government had sent someone of sufficiently high power up to Sunderland to see what could be done about these cleared sites. That would have shown an initiative and desire to help us in our difficulties.
I have raised repeatedly the issue of advance factories. I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary of what the Minister of State said when I raised this matter on the Adjournment a few months ago. He said:
… we have not set our faces against ever building in Sunderland ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April. 1959; Vol. 603, c. 613.]
That is not very encouraging. It is important that we should have a constructive and helpful attitude from the Government. This is not a matter to be doctrinaire about, because the Government are building advance factories in other places. I would not have been so upset if the Government had made a thorough inquiry into Sunderland and presented to the House difficulties in the way of proceeding to build advance factories in Sunderland. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that we shall have a vacant factory in Sunderland itself. Previously, it was a question of five vacant factories in the neighbourhood of Sunderland. I emphasise that it is not enough to present us with our own difficulties. We are not talking about hundreds of unemployed but thousands who have been unemployed now for a considerable time against a background, as far as informed opinion goes, of increasing unemployment.
In bringing to the Parliamentary Secretary's attention the question of advance factories, I would ask him to face up to this matter realistically. I do not want to raise any issue about nationalised industries, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman of the experience of other countries, such as Sweden and the United States, and say that, if we are to have a location of industry policy, the Government must be prepared not only to build a factory, but, if necessary, to operate it. That has been done not only in the socially democratic country of Sweden, but it has been done in the United States.
If we have difficulties in securing a better location of industry, I believe that the Government will have to face up to this problem. I have always held the view that the Government should be prepared to do this. I do not ask them, and particularly I would not waste time by asking this Government, to go into public enterprise lightheartedly, but if a case can be made out for expanding industry in an area which is suffering from exceptional unemployment the Government must hold themselves ready. If private enterprise will not take the step, not only to build a factory but actually to go into production.
I doubt whether even advance factories will meet our need in Sunderland. It is for that reason that I have pressed upon the Government the necessity of considering the development of a further trading estate. This is not a new proposal by any means. I have proposed the building of a trading estate on the north bank of the river. I know that that is not a particularly good site and that it provides, perhaps, only 35 acres for factory building, but there is a great importance about this site which should not be neglected.
One of the difficulties of heavy industrial towns such as Sunderland is the appearance of the town. This is one of the real handicaps in attracting new industries. It was for that reason that I always vigorously put forward this proposal. What is needed in Sunderland is that the river bank, particularly north of the river, should be made more attractive. This is one of the ways in which we might serve two purposes, not only providing new employment, but making the industrial face of the town more


attractive to industrialists who are looking for new locations for their industries. As the President of the Board of Trade himself and his predecessors have said on previous occasions, these psychological factors are important.
We now have another proposal which I have asked the Board of Trade to consider. That is the question of the Usworth airfield, which on the face of it is a very good site for industrial development. It is no longer used by the Air Ministry. It is true that it is outside the present borough boundaries of Sunderland, but that is not a factor which should affect industrial location. It is well situated because it would not be inconvenient to areas outside Sunderland and it would be particularly convenient to the new housing development in the north of Sunderland. I want to know the position about it.
I should like to know how the Board of Trade runs its affairs at all. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that I have raised this matter in the House. On 3rd November, I asked the President of the Board of Trade
what steps he has taken to provide a new trading estate for Sunderland.
The President of the Board of Trade replied:
None, Sir."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1959; Vol. 612, c. 835.]
I was quite aware that at that moment the Board of Trade was discussing this question with people in Sunderland. In fact, the chairman of the general purposes committee said the other day that discussions were now taking place between the Board of Trade and the Corporation.
How serious is the Board of Trade? In the House of Commons, the President was saying that no steps had been taken to provide a new trading estate for Sunderland. At that very moment, his officials were discussing the matter in Sunderland. I understand that they are concerned not only about the Usworth airfield, but also about other possible sites in Sunderland.
It seems to me that this is a dangerous trend developing concerning the location of industry generally and particularly affecting us in Sunderland. This is one of the things that disturbs me about the new Bill. It seems to me that the President of the Board of Trade is trying

to abnegate his responsibility. He tells the House that he knows nothing about the development of a trading estate in Sunderland. His officials, however, are willing to encourage the Corporation to seek a trading estate. This is not meeting the problem of the location of industry and helping the Development Areas.
This is a responsibility which must remain primarily with the Board of Trade. I know that in the case of Sunderland the Corporation is endeavouring to appoint an official to attract industry to the town. I welcome and support the work that has been undertaken by the Wearside District Advisory Committee and the work that everyone in Sunderland is doing to endeavour to attract new industry to Sunderland, but we cannot leave this to local initiative. The whole idea behind the distribution of industry legislation and, I hope, behind the new Bill is to ensure that the Board of Trade will undertake its responsibility to help us in places like Sunderland to attract new industries. We do not want this responsibility to be left merely to local initiative.
I hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say at least that his right hon. Friend was misinformed when he replied to me on 3rd November. I hope he will also be able to say that the question of a new trading estate is being seriously considered, and I hope we shall get rid of the complacency that our level of unemployment is insufficiently high to disturb us in Sunderland. We know in particular that the shipbuilding industry faces real difficulties in the next year or two. For these reasons, I hope that we will get a helpful reply from the Parliamentary Secretary.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Paul Williams: The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and I share at least one thing in common—the desire to promote the highest possible level of employment in Sunderland. I was therefore particularly grateful to the hon. Member when he picked up a phrase which I used before, during and since the election about the considerable disquiet that exists not just in Sunderland but throughout County Durham about future levels of employment in that county and in the North-East generally.
This is a basic ingredient, something bred into the people of the North-East from experience in the past and memories which hon. Members older than myself have more colourfully than I have. Nevertheless, even the most embittered of politicians, outside this House naturally, would agree that it would be impossible even for a person like myself, still fairly young, to have grown up in the North-East in the years between the wars without knowing very deeply the bitterness, hostility, uncertainty and degradation that came from those years of unemployment. That is why those of us from the North-East will never cease to shout out loud to champion our cause and to see that we have a fair deal in comparison with the rest of the nation in maintaining our levels of employment.
But I ask the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, in painting his picture, not to try to create the impression—and I do not think that he wants to—that Sunderland should live by trading estates alone.

Mr. Wiley: Hear, hear.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member rightly paid tribute to the part played by the shipbuilding industry in providing the basic employment for Sunderland, but that is not enough. Indeed, it is not enough at this moment, and perhaps for the next year or two, for shipbuilding will go through a further recession and perhaps bring higher levels of unemployment to Sunderland, Tyneside and other river towns of this land Therefore, we must be doubly aware of the dangers facing towns like Sunderland, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Jarrow and South Shields where a great number of people depend upon the shipbuilding industry for security of employment and their standard of living.
In addition in the North-East generally, as I have implied in talking earlier of County Durham, we have the bedevilling influence of the decline of the coal industry. This is a fact of life, whether we like it or not, which aggravates the position not just in Durham but throughout the county. I agree that what is needed is a reinvigoration of the policy of diversification of industry, if I may use that terrible term. We need a greater spread of industry in the North-East. We, the pioneers of the Team Valley Trading Estate, who set the pace

and showed the way for the nation before the war, can surely demand some dividend from the nation today.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North made relatively severe criticisms of Government activities over the last two years or so, for it is in the last two years that this problem has become most apparent. It is worth commenting that these two years have covered the time during which the Government, in their wisdom or, as some hon. Members might think, otherwise, have taken severe and strict action to control prices and overcome the basic problem of our economy since the war, which is the forever upward movement of prices and wages. In these two years certain consequences have flowed from that. One has been that it has been progressively more difficult to draw industry into areas such as Sunderland and the North-East because industry has been unwilling to expand.
Now we are moving to an expansionary phase and it is likely that industry will be more willing to look to areas such as Sunderland, Durham and Tyneside for its development. One need only look at the traffic jams that occur in this great capital city of the Commonwealth every day of the week now to realise how ridiculous it must be for the majority of industries to expand in the great cities, such as London, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool, and that a point must be reached when it becomes profitable to divert attention away voluntarily to the areas where unemployment is at present high.
I do not say that voluntary effort is enough. That is why, like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the Local Employment Bill, which I believe will help us, particularly in Sunderland, although I have certain reservations which I may be able to put before the House next week. I believe that the mood of national expansion in our economy, allied to the new Bill introduced by the Government, will bring succour and help to areas such as Sunderland, where we need it most definitely and most immediately.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on bringing this matter before the House,


primarily for his own constituency. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) on having been afforded the opportunity of putting in a few words for Sunderland as well. I thank them both for including the surrounding area in the appeal they have made, because Sunderland is within the surrounding area of my own constituency. I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the aspect of Sunderland; when one goes to Sunderland one never thinks one is in South Shields.
For some months, I have had correspondence with the Board of Trade about the reopening of a factory in my own constituency. In fact, I have been highly honoured by the fact that all three Members of the Government in the Board of Trade have at one time or other written to me on this subject. The latest, and in some ways the most encouraging, was the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary, for he said that there had been a number of inquiries about the factory. Of course, if one had not been engaged in trying to let factories and buy land one would not have known, but that, of course, is always the way in which the development of such transactions is described. There are always a number of people trying to get this site, and the real problem is not to find someone but to sort out the one who should take the place.
I regret to say that although that letter was written to me some time before the election, nothing has materialised, and in the meantime the unemployment situation has been aggravated. What the two hon. Members who have spoken for Sunderland have said about it is equally applicable to the other towns within the area which is roughly known as the North-East Coast or the Wearside and the Tyneside.
As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South has said, memories in that area are very bitter, and the worst is generally assumed the minute men begin to get stood off. The previous period of unemployment was so prolonged that people gat into a frame of mind in which in the comparative prosperity of the after-war years they were always haunted by the fear that we might get back to the old position at some time or other.
I regret to see time after time in comments in the Press the statement that shipbuilding must be recognised as a declining industry. I can think of nothing more futile for a great island, a maritime and industrial community such as ours, than to allow shipbuilding to get back to the parlous position that it was in before the Second World War broke out. If there is a decline in the shipbuilding industry, it will be more than a matter of local unemployment. We must try to get a sense of proportion and perspective about the importance of this industry on which the towns in that area largely depend. Ship-repairing is in the same plight, except that in addition ship-repairing suffers while national trade is slack. One does not get much ship-repairing if no ships are sailing.
We are in a desperate frame of mind in these areas because of what we experienced in the later 'twenties and 'thirties of this century. On 17th July, the mayor of South Shields asked industrialists and trade unionists in the area to meet him. He also invited me. This was during the printers' strike, and the Press were not represented. So, at a meeting that might well have been a case of the pot calling the kettle black, the realisation that no immediate publicity was going to be given enabled the parties to talk in a spirit of co-operation, which was very advantageous.
One of the greatest ship-repairers in this country was present and had recently been round Scandinavia. He told us that he had managed to collect some orders and that the thing that he had to compete against most was the way in which the British shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries had been written down in the British Press. He complained that everywhere he went in Scandinavia he heard that it was no good sending ships to Britain to be repaired because of the many industrial disputes that were keeping the industry in a poor condition. He is a man whom I have known for a long time, and I respect him because he always speaks frankly. He was indignant that his efforts had been impaired by what he regarded as slanderous statements about this industry.
We do not want to see anything like another epidemic of efforts by Shipbuilding Securities Ltd. who killed this industry in sites that used to be very


productive. We ask the Board of Trade, and anybody else who may be concerned with this, to bring home to the British people—as I hope we shall be able to bring home to the shipbuilding and ship-repairing areas of the country—the importance of maintaining good employment so that the great teams of men that work for particular yards can be kept together. They were so broken up in the years just before the Second World War that, even in the height of the war, we were never able to get the men back into the industry to carry on the great cooperative efforts that such a team of men represent when they are engaged in highly skilled trades of which they are proud. My own constituents used to line the piers at the mouth of the Tyne to see the "Mauretania", which was a recognised symbol of the skill and the enterprise of the men who had worked on her in pre-war days at Palmer's yard at Jarrow.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

Mr. Ede: We have a vacant factory in my area, and what we need is for that factory to be occupied by some trade which will employ skilled male labour. I sincerely hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will be able to say to all Members representing the North-East Coast that the needs of the area are constantly in mind and that the Government are doing their utmost to maintain and revive work in the area and to send to it other trades which will enable men of high skill to be able to exercise their skill in these days when the outlook for many of them for months has been very dark indeed.
10.1 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: What has already been said applies to my constituency even more acutely. My latest information is that Jarrow now has an unemployment rate of more than 9 per cent. If Jarrow were separated from Hebburn—at the moment there is only one unemployment exchange for the two towns—I am sure that the unemployment rate in Jarrow would be nearer 12 per cent. There is little need for me to remind

the Parliamentary Secretary of what that means to a community such as Jarrow which had such bitter experiences in the inter-war years.
I have raised this matter in correspondence. I have written to the Ministry of Labour and, before the General Election, to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. Since the election I have questioned the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Trade. Every time the problem is raised, we find that everyone is willing to do his best, but no results seem to accrue from all those gigantic administrative efforts.
The position is getting worse. The Parliamentary Secretary is aware that for some time I have been agitating about a factory which has closed. He will remember that before the election he wrote me a letter, the contents of which were not very pleasant, since he wrote bad news, but which are still confidential. I hope that some day the hon. Gentleman will send me a confidential letter which is pleasant. I will tell him the sort of confidential letter I should like him to send.
I understand that Ford's are now to have a great expansion and that there is some argument about where Ford's new factory is to be sited. If the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend would write to me that as a result of private efforts he could now confidentially inform me that Ford's were to go to Jarrow, I should be delighted.
I do not want to be unfair to the hon. Gentleman, but he knows that since the election the position has become worse. There are more unemployed in Jarrow and there are more on short time. Future prospects are bleak. Even though I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to reply tonight—he had no prior information that we should have the opportunity to raise these matters—I hope that in a matter of days or weeks he will be able to give me some information which will give hope to many people who are now feeling very low and despondent because of the condition of their town.

10.5 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): I am grateful, as I think the whole House


will be, to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for providing us with the opportunity to discuss the serious problems of industrial development in the North-East particularly round the Sunderland area, and the considerable disquiet which we know exists in this area. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I share the deep concern that is felt.
As he said, the unemployment during this year has averaged over 5 per cent. and is now 5·8 per cent. according to the la test figures. Unfortunately, it is apparently deteriorating and not improving in spite of the fact, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that the overall economy is improving all the time.
We recognise the serious need for employment not only for men but for women, too, which is a new situation that has arisen fairly recently in this area. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) will forgive me if I do not answer in detail the points which they made because I had no previous knowledge of them and I did not come armed with particular statistics about them. I will, however, at a later stage make some observations about the shipbuilding industry in general.
The Government are not unconcerned. I think that it was not very fair of the hon. Gentleman, who is usually so fair in his statements, to suggest that we were not concerned. We have shown our concern. Whether we have succeeded or not is a different matter. It is not entirely within the power of the Government to command success in this field, but we did show our concern for the problems of the district when, for instance, in March of this year we put Sunderland, Pallion and Southwick on the list of areas for which assistance may be available under the 1958 Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that very little has been heard from that. I regret it as much as he does. I wish that more use had been made of the facilities there for business men, and I will do what I can to bring their attention to the availability of these resources in the Sunderland area.
We fully appreciate the hon. Member's concern at the outlook for coal mining, shipbuilding and ship-repairing, particularly as these industries account for nearly 30 per cent. of the insured male population. The latest information which I have, however, is that, in spite of the depression that exists in these shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries, three firms are at present going ahead in Sunderland with modernisation schemes which should make them more able to compete, and eventually lead to improved prospects.
I share the view of the right hon. Gentleman that we should not get into a frame of mind in which we see shipbuilding as a permanently declining industry, like cotton. Here is an industry which is one of the most important to our country, and we must try to revitalise it and keep it healthy. Although the industry is undoubtedly facing a serious problem, there are signs that it is taking steps to help itself, and we shall do what we can. The Government have the problem of these areas dependent on one or two industries such as these very much in mind. That is really what the existing Distribution of Industry Acts are trying to do. Where industries are contracting, whether permanently or temporarily, we are trying to bring about diversification of industry. This is desperately needed in this area, and we shall do our best to bring about further diversification.
We have no power to command firms to go to these areas. All we can do is to offer them certain inducements in them and to deter them from trying to develop where they sometimes wish, leaving it to those areas where the unemployment figure is above the national average to attract particular firms to them. We feel that the policy of trying to bring diversity of industry to these areas is a better way of beating the challenge of change in the pattern of demand and industrial techniques than the policy of concentrating on steps to shore up declining industries. I think that that is a wrong policy; it is a temporary expedient. If we can diversify we can do a lot better, and under existing legislation a considerable amount has been done to help solve Sunderland's problem.
In August of this year, factories on the Board of Trade premises at Pallion and Southwick provided employment for


about 5,400 people. This represents 13·4 per cent. of those engaged in manufacturing industries in this town. It may be that that is not as large a number as we had all hoped, by this year of grace, but it must be remembered that as techniques improve and machines are made more nearly perfect they can very often turn out more work with less men. There is a continual problem of technological unemployment due to better machinery, and this may be one reason why, on the Pallion Estate, the number of employed has not risen in the past few years as steeply as we had hoped. The factories on the Pallion Estate comprise over 800,000 square ft.
I should like to say a word about the hon. Member's remarks concerning the new factory for 60-Minute Cleaners. I was not quite sure what he was getting at. As far as I know, there has been no undue delay since I first gave him this information. The estate company was informed at the beginning of this month that formal approval to go ahead had been given. I cannot tell him in detail the position with regard to the actual construction of the factory, but there has been no hold-up by the Board of Trade.
An extension for another firm which is already a Board of Trade tenant has also been approved in principle, and is expected to provide 60 additional jobs. A third firm, new to the area, was allocated an empty factory on the Pallion Estate in August of this year. It is expected to provide 100 jobs within two years. I am unfortunately aware of the close-down of the Bristol Aeroplane Company's factory. The firm has decided to vacate one of its four factories and to concentrate its production in the three that remain. As my right hon. Friend told the House, we will do all we can in the Board of Trade to find an alternative tenant for that vacated space. We cannot do more than that.
I now turn from Government factories to industrial development in Sunderland generally. It is encouraging to note that factories and extensions recently completed are expected to provide about 400 new jobs; that premises now under construction are expected to provide over 100 new jobs; and that premises

approved but not yet started are expected to provide over 250 new jobs. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North adverted to a suggestion he has made on several occasions in this House, namely, that a new Government trading estate should be established on the north bank of the river. We share his desire to see an increase in the amount of space made available for use by industry in and around Sunderland, but I must point out that room for 200,000 sq. ft. of factory space is already available on the Board's estate at Pallion, besides a further 60,000 sq. ft. at Southwick, although that is earmarked for Ericssons' only. He also asked what extra jobs would be created when the Pallion Estate was completely filled with tenants. I could not give him an estimate of that without previous knowledge, and even then it would be difficult. It all depends on the type of factory.
We recognise that there is a shortage of new industrial sites in the area concerned, and our regional office, in conjunction with the National Coal Board, is trying to find sites within easy reach of Sunderland which are not likely to be subject to subsidence. I think this was the point he had in mind about my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade not reporting on the activities and official discussions going on in the area. They are looking for sites and they are looking at the airfield site, but I cannot give any details. It is among the sites that are being considered.

Mr. Willey: I had in mind that here are two different things. The hon. Gentleman's officials can help the corporation in surveys and looking for sites. That is one thing. I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Board of Trade is concerned about finding sites or a trading estate, whether it is interested. I think there is a big difference between the two approaches. I still feel that this should be primarily the responsibility of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Rodgers: We co-operate in looking for new sites where there is a shortage, but that is different from the problem which the hon. Gentleman raised. To the question of whether we have made a decision now to start a new trading estate, the answer is, "No." We have not done that, nor at the moment are we contemplating such a decision.
We feel that with new legislation going through the House we must wait before we make a decision to spend public money on a new trading estate in this area.
That is also the reason why we are waiting and will not commit ourselves to the building of new advance factories. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there was considerable discussion in this House about advance factories. We are building three, and we shall judge from the result of that experiment whether the building of advance factories should be extended. But at present we have insufficient evidence to prove that they are an effective method of attracting industrialists to a particular area. I cannot, therefore, give an assurance that we would be prepared to build advance factories in the Sunderland area, though we are prepared to build other factories.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the corporation's proposals for the clearance of sites for industrial use. Our powers at the moment, as I have explained to him before, are limited under the terms of the 1945 Act, to land which is legally derelict and to work on that land sufficient to enable it to be brought into use. Grants cannot be made towards the cost of subsequent redevelopment, and the one application from the corporation which we have considered was for land which was not derelict but did require redevelopment. It was not possible to bring this within the provisions of the Act.
Sunderland's first and prime need, as the hon. Gentleman himself said, is to attract new industry, and I am pleased to note the proposal of the corporation to appoint a commercial representative whose responsibility would be the

attraction of new industries to the towns. Our Regional Comptroller has been associated with the meetings of the district committee of Regional Board for Industry at which this proposal was discussed, and he has agreed to assist the representative in any way he can. I should like to commend the local authority on its initiative, and I hope that this will prove a fruitful way of providing employment.

Mr. P. Williams: My hon. Friend is not saying, in making that suggestion, that the first responsibility should rest on the commercial representatives and the second responsibility on the Board of Trade? Surely the matter must be the other way around.

Mr. Rodgers: I am not saying that for a moment. We have a responsibility, but a little self-help does not do any harm, and the enthusiasm of the people in the locality can assist to steer industry to this area.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like me to say something about the position in Sunderland under the terms of the new Bill when it becomes law. However, I am also sure he realises that I cannot give any undertaking that Sunderland, or any other town, will he included in the list of places to he assisted under the provisions in the new Bill, which has still to pass through most of its Parliamentary stages. But I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the case of Sunderland will be carefully considered at the appropriate time. We recognise Sunderland's case, and we shall do all in our power to assist.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Ten o'clock.